Leder fra LaRouche PAC, 18. juli, 2017 – Udviklingerne i USA i dag er et yderligere bevis på, at præsident Donald Trumps planer om at genopbygge den amerikanske økonomi og vende kollapset i den amerikanske levestandard, alt imens hensigten er god, umuligt vil kunne realiseres uden at løse det fremstormende kollaps af det vestlige finanssystem. En genrejsning vil ikke være mulig uden skabelsen af en moderne udgave af kreditsystemet i Hamiltons tradition, for at skabe den massive mængde kredit, der behøves for blot at rokke den sårede kolos, som er den amerikanske økonomi. Det Amerikanske Civilingeniørselskab skønner, at der behøves tæt ved $5 billioner hen over de næste otte år for blot at genoprette den forfaldne infrastruktur til en anstændig standard, alt imens Kinas Investeringsselskab, en statslig investeringsfond, der ønsker at investere milliarder i USA (hvis de nødvendige, finansielle strukturer kan skabes), skønner, at investeringsunderskuddet er $8 billioner.

Hvor efterlader det så Trumps forslag om en $1 billion stor infrastrukturfond? Eller, for den sags skyld, hvor skal kreditten til at fikse det ødelagte, amerikanske sundhedssystem komme fra, eller til at genoprette vore nedgraderede varefremstillingskapaciteter, eller vores forskning og udvikling inden for fremskudte områder, såsom kernefusionskraft og udforskning af rummet?

Trump har udråbt mandag til at være »Made in Amerika Day«, Fremstillet i USA-dag, hvor han i Det Hvide Hus vil ære førende producenter og lover at genoprette Amerikas tidligere varefremstillingsekspertise. Men, han nævnte ikke noget om sit løfte om at genindføre Glass-Steagall for at gøre en ende på hasardspilskasinoet på Wall Street, der nu har opbygget en derivatpulje af værdiløse spekulationspapirer, der er næsten dobbelt så stor, som den, der førte til krakket i 2008. Uden dette første skridt med Glass-Steagall for at muliggøre en statsdirigeret kreditpolitik, vil de øvrige forholdsregler, som Trump har nævnt – fjernelse af regler og afslutning af handlepolitikker, der ikke er fair – end ikke tilnærmelsesvis kunne begynde at vende sammenbruddet.

Eller, lad os se på fiaskoen med sundhedssystemet. Det seneste forsøg for at ophæve Obamacare-katastrofen og erstatte den med noget, der er lige så dårligt, er faldet fra hinanden, idet hverken Republikanere eller Demokrater kunne udholde lugten. Trump responderede, at Obamacare nu ville kollapse på egen hånd, og at dette kunne åbne for muligheden for at arbejde sammen med Demokrater for at skabe en brugbar løsning.

Men, der findes ingen brugbar løsning, så længe, det er Wall Street, der kører sundhedssystemet gennem de forsikringskonglomerater, der udelukkende drives ud fra en maksimering af aktieindehavernes værdi med det formål at udtrække rigdom af systemet. Her er problemet igen manglen på kredit, der kan adressere kollapset i sundhedssystemets tjenesteydelser – det er ikke et forsikringsproblem, men et sammenbrud i det fysiske system for tjenesteydelser.

Én af de Republikanske senatorer, der vendte sig imod GOP-planen i dag, Jerry Moran, er fra Kansas, en stat, hvor årene med nedskæringer inden for sundhedsvæsenet har efterladt statens landdistrikter med bogstavelig talt ingen adgang til akut lægebehandling, som det også er tilfældet i mange af de indre byområder i det engang så blomstrende, industrielle hjerteland. Hill-Burton-politikken, som blev initieret af Franklin Roosevelt, adresserede ikke forsikring, men levering af ydelserne. Alle borgere havde ved lov adgang til hospitaler og lægefagligt personale op til en given standard – hvis den private sektor leverede dette til et lokalsamfund, så fint nok, men hvis ikke, var det pålagt de lokale og nationale regeringer at gøre det. Det er denne fysiske virkelighed, der må adresseres, og som udelukkende kun kan adresseres gennem Glass-Steagall og genoplivelsen af et statsligt kreditsystem således, som det skabtes under Det Amerikanske System i Hamiltons tradition. Dette Amerikanske Systems nærdød, især siden mordet på Jack Kennedy, kan og må vendes i de kommende uger og måneder.

Præsidenten har næsten knækket ryggen på Det britiske Imperiums imperieopsplitning af verden i krigsførende magter, ved at indgå partnerskaber med Rusland og Kina for at bekæmpe terrorisme og opbygge verden gennem den Nye Silkevej. Men, briterne har altid kørt deres imperium ved hjælp af magt over strømmen af kredit, under det »private« banksystem. Deres had til Trump, og deres lancering af den ’farvede revolution’, der nu føres for at fjerne eller myrde ham, drives både af hans afvisning af den imperiale opsplitning af verden, men endnu mere af hans trussel om at genindføre Det amerikanske System for statskredit, der vil knuse Wall Streets og City of Londons magt. Alle amerikanere må handle for at gennemføre dette nye paradigme i dette mulighedernes øjeblik. Det vil ikke vare ved.

Photo:Made in America Product Showcase | July 17, 2017 (Official White House Photo by Evan Walker)

Leder fra LaRouche PAC, 16. juli, 2017 – I dag talte Helga Zepp-LaRouche om det historiske faseskifte, der finder sted i verden, i retning af det Nye Paradigme, som LaRouche-organisationen har promoveret i de seneste 50 år, og det ansvar, som denne lille, men afgørende organisation må leve op til for at sikre, at dette nye paradigme, og ikke et globalt, økonomisk sammenbrud og en ny verdenskrig, kommer til at afgøre menneskehedens skæbne. I parafrase lyder hendes budskab som følger:

På den positive side sagde fr. LaRouche ved årets begyndelse, at Donald Trump kunne blive en af de største præsidenter i hele USA’s historie, hvis det lykkes ham at få USA til at samarbejde med den Nye Silkevej. Dette finder nu sted med Trump, der arbejder tæt sammen med Xi Jinping om at integrere USA i Silkevejsprocessen, en proces, i hvilken LaRouche-organisationen har spillet en afgørende rolle siden 1990’erne. Overvej engang mødet på Mar-a-Lago, det faktum, at Trump sendte en delegation på højt niveau til Bælte & Vej Forum i Maj, samt det faktum, at Trump nu siger, at han kender Xi Jinping temmelig godt, og at de har etableret en meget god relation og er mødtes flere gange – det er en meget solid basis for samarbejde.

Den kendsgerning, at Trump-Putin-mødet i Hamborg i denne måned gik fremragende godt, især konfronteret med et massivt forsøg på et kup imod Trump fra Det britiske Imperiums og dets amerikanske aktivers side; begge præsidenter manøvrerede meget vist og meget godt. Den kendsgerning, at Putin bagefter sagde, at Trump er meget anderledes end det billede, medierne fremstiller af ham, og at dette kan blive grundlaget for en fortsat, stærk relation – dette er fremragende. Forestil jer blot, hvis der havde været en Hillary Clinton i Det Hvide Hus – så ville vi allerede have haft Tredje Verdenskrig.

Så på dette plan gør Trump det virkelig godt – lyt ikke ét sekund til det, de liberale i USA siger; dette er komplet irrelevant, for det, der tæller, er den strategiske situation. Får vi Tredje Verdenskrig, eller ej? Så, hvad så siden, der foregår internt i USA, er relativt sekundært i forhold til den strategiske situation; og her har Trump gjort det fremragende godt.

Overvej det faktum, at Trump blev inviteret af præsident Macron til at være æresgæst i Frankrig – og dette var hans første besøg til udlandet – i anledning af den nationale Bastilledag, og til at spise middag med Macron på en meget fin restaurant på toppen af Eiffeltårnet. Bagefter sagde Macron, at Frankrigs relationer i lige grad er tætte til USA og til Rusland. Dette er meget vigtigt. Hvis man ser på resten af Europa: Østeuropas og Centraleuropas holdning til at deltage i Silkevejen; Italien, Spanien, Portugal går alle i retning af samarbejde med Kina. Macron, der sendte tidligere premierminister Raffarin, en stærk fortaler for samarbejde med Kina, til Bælte & Vej Forum, og nu, Macron, der inviterer Trump på denne måde – dette betyder tydeligvis, at krigskoalitionen mellem Theresa May og Angela Merkel – der mødtes med Obama kort tid efter Trumps valgsejr, netop for dette formål – at det ikke virker.

Det bedste trumfkort, Trump har, er netop disse globale spørgsmål. Dette er ikke en kamp internt i USA. Som Lyndon LaRouche har fremført, siden begyndelsen af Trump-fænomenets fremvækst: Dette er strategisk, dette er internationalt, ikke et strengt nationalt spørgsmål, og denne kamp vil blive vundet, eller tabt, på international skala. Tænk ikke småt, tænk ikke lokalt; det er ikke sådan, historien fungerer på dette tidspunkt.

Når dette er sagt, må man imidlertid også meget klart bemærke, at den store ’Akilleshæl’ er Trumps økonomiske politik. Syv måneder inde i sit præsidentskab, har han endnu ikke bedrevet noget, der virkelig understøtter budskabet om, at han mener, hvad han siger, med hensyn til sine valgløfter – Glass-Steagall, det Amerikanske System, økonomisk praksis i Hamiltons tradition, $1 billion i infrastrukturinvesteringer. Det er sandsynligvis stadigvæk, hvad han har til hensigt at gøre, men det er stadig ikke sket. Og han er stadig omgivet af Wall Street-folk som finansminister Steve Mnuchin – det er helt klart den svage flanke.

Vi befinder os under et Damoklessværd i form af et sammenbrud, værre end i 2008. Der er mange røster ud over LaRouche-organisationen, der advarer om, at alle centralbankernes redskaber er opbrugt; kvantitativ lempelse har blot ført til en forøgelse af spekulanternes profit, på bekostning af den almene befolkning. Svælget mellem rig og fattig vokser til stadighed; selskabernes gæld, statsgælden, alle disse faktorer er meget værre end i 2008. Hvis det her kollapser, har vi omgående kaos. Vi er ikke ude over faren for en trussel mod civilisationens eksistens. NATO-øvelser finder stadig sted tæt på Ruslands grænser, og det er stadig en kilde til fare. Men lige nu er den største fare finanssystemets sammenbrud, der ville føre til omgående kaos.

Hvis man vil have en forsmag på, hvordan det ville se ud, så se engang på sammenbruddet af New Yorks undergrundsbane og anden infrastruktur i New York City, hvor New Yorks guvernør indrømmer, at dette er »Helvedessommeren«. På ingen tid kunne man få et kollaps i infrastrukturen lige så vel, som man kunne få et kollaps af finanssystemet. Tro endelig ikke, at vi er ude over farezonen!

Denne krise vil næsten sikkert udspilles ved slutningen af denne sommer. Denne magtsituation med sine to sider – ud fra standpunktet om Trump som præsident, men med et samtidigt, igangværende kupforsøg mod Trump som præsident, der er styret af briterne. Dette kan ikke vare ved; én af siderne vil vinde.

Vi er fremragende placeret for at kunne vinde, men det kræver en ekstraordinær forpligtelse fra det amerikanske folks side, som denne organisation må påtage sig ansvaret for, med en helt ny opfattelse af sin mission.

Foto: Helga Zepp-LaRouche, juli, 2017.    

Leder fra LaRouche PAC, 12. juli, 2017 – De seneste, forrykte udbrud af »Russia-gate« drejer sig ikke om et møde med en russisk advokat; det drejer sig om et topmøde med den russiske præsident.

Præsident Trumps politik har været konsekvent og modig – »Samarbejde med Rusland er en god ting, ikke en dårlig ting; vi har begge enorme atomvåbenarsenaler; vi kan bekæmpe terrorisme, vi kan afslutte de konstante krige« – konfronteret med stadig mere hysterisk McCarthy-isme fra medierne og begge partier i Kongressen.

Det, der stod på spil på dette Trump-Putin-topmøde: fred i områderne Mellemøsten og Nordafrika, der er ødelagt af Bush’ og Obamas krige for »regimeskifte«; eller, mere krig, og muligvis atomkrig. Nogle Demokratiske ledere i Kongressen er blevet lige så forrykte koldkrigere som senator Joe McCarthy, eller J. Edgar Hoover, den fanatiske FBI-direktør, som fire successive præsidenter ikke kunne klare at fyre.

Blandt deres seneste udbrud finder vi Senatets mindretalsleder, Chuck Schumer, der siger: »Tiden, hvor man hævder, der ikke er nogen beviser for aftalt spil med fjenden, er forbi« (fremhævelse tilføjet); og Hillary Clintons vicepræsidentkandidat, senator Tim Kaine, der siger, »Vi taler nu ikke længere om forhindring af rettens udøvelse mht. det, vi efterforsker. Dette er nu gået videre til mened, falske erklæringer og endda, potentielt, forræderi.«

Andre Demokrater, der er imod denne Russia-gate-besættelse, klager, at det ikke er godt for det Demokratiske Parti. Det er ikke det, det handler om. Dette er en politik for krig. Schumer, Kaine og andre er modstandere af våbenstilstand i Syrien, succes i Genève-forhandlingerne, stabilisering af Libyen, potentiel fred og genopbygning (som Kina er parat til) i hele området, og fred i Asien.

Præsident Trumps politik for samarbejde med Putin og med Xi fra Kina er modig. Han vender væk fra det, der grundlæggende set er et establishment for britisk imperiepolitik, der insisterer på, at »ene-supermagten« kan kommandere rundt med atommagterne Rusland og Kina, og alle andre nationer, og gennemføre »regimeskifte« over for alle, der ikke adlyder. At Trump er modig nok til fyre en magtsyg FBI-direktør, er også vigtigt.

Men hvad der ikke er modigt, er præsidentens manglende evne til at tage skridt mod Wall Street i retning af at gennemføre den politik for økonomisk genrejsning, han gik til valg på. I stedet kører Wall Street, anført af sådanne personer som finansminister Steven Mnuchin, fuldstændig hen over ham.

Det amerikanske folk kræver, at Wall Streets storbanker brydes op i henhold til en Glass/Steagall-bankopdeling, før det næste finanssammenbrud, der nu sandsynligvis vil indtræffe til efteråret. En national kreditinstitution, i Hamiltons tradition, til ny, økonomisk infrastruktur, kan ikke længere opsættes; afgørende vigtige, men totalt forfaldne infrastruktursystemer, er i færd med at bryde sammen, helt uden orkaner eller oversvømmelser. Det er ikke nok blot at reparere dem: Der er brug for teknologisk og videnskabeligt nye infrastrukturplatforme, såsom højhastighedsjernbaner og svævetogssystemer, og forskning i fusionskraftteknologi – sådan, som Kina er i færd med at bygge det i hele den Nye Silkevej, der breder sig! Og »motoren« bag et sådant fremskridt må atter blive NASA og den avancerende udforskning af rummet.

Præsidenten kan ikke organisere dette alene. Det amerikanske folk må organisere for de »Fire Love«, som Lyndon LaRouche har formuleret, og for USA’s tilslutning til den Nye Silkevej.

Præsident Trump kæmper mod den britiske imperiepolitik, og det var britisk efterretning, der lancerede »Russia-gate« imod ham for et år siden, og som har drevet lederskabet i Kongressen til vanvid à la McCarthy.

Men hverken han, eller nogen at de to partier i Kongressen, bekæmper Wall Street. Det falder på resten af os, og det kan ikke udskydes; i modsat fald vil det næste, overhængende krak totalt udslette os.

Foto: Præsident Trump på G20-møde den 9. juli, 2017. Bag ham, finansminister Steven Mnuchin.

Leder fra LaRouche PAC, 9. juli, 2017 – G20-mødet, der blev holdt i Hamborg, Tyskland, den 7.-8. juli, frembragte intet, der ligner den form for politiske initiativer, der kræves for at overvinde den dødbringende krise, som konfronterer menneskeheden, og den transatlantiske sektor i særdeleshed. Det adresserede ikke den globale finanskrise, med dens $1,5 billiard store, bankerotte derivatspekulation. Det diskuterede ikke gennemførelsen af en politik for global Glass/Steagall, eller for et kreditsystem i Hamiltons tradition, der alene kan vende de vestlige, fysiske økonomiers dødbringende kollaps, som Lyndon LaRouche endegyldigt har vist i sine Fire Love. Mødet stillede heller ikke spørgsmålet om at erstatte geopolitik og krig med en ny fremgangsmåde inden for globale relationer. Så i denne betydning levede G20-topmødet slet ikke op til det, den burde have opnået.

Alligevel kom der et meget positivt resultat ud af topmødet – ja, faktisk et gennembrud for strategisk fremskridt – for det meste som et resultat af en række bilaterale møder, der skaber historie, på sidelinjerne af topmødet, især det produktive møde mellem den amerikanske præsident Donald Trump og den russiske præsident Vladimir Putin – på trods af alle bestræbelser fra Det britiske Imperiums og dets amerikanske allieredes side på at forsøge at forhindre det i at ske.

Det er sædeles signifikant, at det russiske nyhedsbureau, TASS, valgte at udgive Schiller Instituttets præsident, Helga Zepp-LaRouches vurdering mht. mødet mellem de to præsidenter, i en artikel med titlen, »Ekspertvurdering: Det lykkedes ikke antirussisk kampagne i USA at blokere for et succesfuldt møde mellem Putin og Trump«, og som understregede Zepp-LaRouches vurdering, der lød, at de to præsidenter »har overensstemmende synspunkter mht. deres ikke-accept af krige og interventioner og indblanding i andre landes anliggender«.

Enig i Zepp-LaRouches synspunkt, sagde ruslandsekspert og fremtrædende historiker, Stephen Cohen, til Fox Tv, at den overskrift, han ville give Trump-Putin-mødet, er: »En potentielt ny, historisk detente og et anti-koldkrigspartnerskab indledtes af Trump og Putin; imidlertid optrappes bestræbelser på at sabotere det«. Cohen sagde, Trump havde været »politisk modig«, og at »i dag blev vi muligvis vidne til, at præsident Trump voksede frem som en amerikansk statsmand«.

Under en diskussion med medarbejdere i dag mindede Helga Zepp-LaRouche om, at Trump og Kinas Xi Jinping havde holdt et meget succesfuldt møde på Mar-a-Lago tilbage i april måned; og at der umiddelbart forud for G20-topmødet havde været et strategisk møde mellem Xi Jinping og Putin i Moskva, som af begge sider blev karakteriseret som årets vigtigste, diplomatiske begivenhed og beskrev relationen mellem deres to lande som den bedste nogensinde. Nu har der, sagde Zepp-LaRouche, været et meget lovende, første møde mellem Trump og Putin. Så hvis disse tre præsidenter virkelig kan arbejde sammen, vil verden bevæge sig et gigantskridt fremad, og bort fra afgrunden og i stedet i retning af et nyt paradigme.

Der er selvfølgelig meget mere arbejde, der skal gøres. Det britiske Imperium må stadig overvindes. Man kan trygt stole på, at flokken på Wall Street og i City of London – samt deres bydrenge i det Demokratiske Partis Obama-lejr, og også de Republikanske neokonservative – vil gå bersærk over deres mislykkede forsøg på at standse Trump-Putin-topmødet, og vil optrappe deres kampagne for at vælte Trump-administrationen. Der er faren for fremprovokerede krige på utallige scener over hele planeten. Men sejr er i sigte.

Zepp-LaRouche opfordrede den internationale LaRouche-bevægelse til at optrappe kampagnen for at sætte disse spørgsmål på dagsordenen, som G20-topmødet officielt undlod: nemlig LaRouches Fire Love, og at USA og Europa officielt fuldt og helt tilslutter sig Bælte & Vej Initiativet. Få folk til at støtte op omkring os, som kilden til de afgørende ideer, der driver denne udvikling fremad.

Foto: Præsidenterne Trump og Xi på G20-topmødet i Hamborg, Tyskland, 8. juli, 2017. (photo realdonaldtrump/instagram)

Leder fra LaRouche PAC, 6. juli, 2017 – Med det planlagte topmøde fredag, der nærmer sig, mellem præsidenterne Trump og Putin, er der et stort potentiale for et brud, væk fra det britiskorkestrerede fremstød for at sabotere samarbejde mellem Rusland og USA. Men, som Helga Zepp-LaRouche i dag advarede om, så er der imidlertid ingen tid at spilde på selvtilfredshed –

»Alt kan falde på plads, eller kunne falde fra hinanden«.

Situationen i Nordkorea drives helt ud på randen, og skylden lægges på Kina, alt imens briterne fabrikerer fake-news om et kemisk angreb i Syrien, hvor skylden lægges på russerne! Vi har spørgsmålet om krig eller fred liggende lige foran os!

Briterne og de neokonservative i både det Republikanske og Demokratiske parti i USA, med de løgnagtige medier som heppekor, ønsker at bringe USA tilbage til Obamas kurs mod krig med Rusland og Kina. Niveauet af kampagnehysteri og desperation for at bringe præsidenten til fald blev i dag udstillet under pressekonferencen mellem præsident Trump og den polske præsident Andrzej Duda, der fandt sted efter deres møde i Warszawa, og hvor en reporter forsøgte at lægge en fælde for Trump og sagde: »Svar ja eller nej; blandede Rusland sig i det amerikanske valg?« Trump levede op til situationen og sagde, i parafrase: »Det kunne have været Rusland, og det kunne have været andre lande. Jeg mener, det har fundet sted i mange år.«

Trump nævnte ikke eksplicit briterne, men han er selvfølgelig helt bekendt med det platte dossier, fuld af løgn, som blev udarbejdet af den britiske MI6-agent, Christopher Steele (på lønningslisten over britiske aktiver hos både det Republikanske og Demokratiske parti, og måske også hr. Comeys FBI), og som fremstiller Trump som russernes naive tåbe, der bliver afpresset og kontrolleret af Putin.

Presset af den afsporede journalist, der sagde, at det amerikanske efterretningssamfund direkte placerede det på russerne, svarede Trump, helt korrekt, at efterretningssamfundet og journalistens reporter-kolleger for nylig var blevet afsløret i at bringe falske nyheder til torvs med deres påstand om, at »alle 17 amerikanske efterretningstjenester var enige i«, at det var russerne; og at medierne var blevet tvunget til at indrømme, at de havde taget fejl med hensyn til denne og flere andre falske nyhedshistorier om Rusland. »Husker I Irak?«, spurgte Trump. »Alle var enige om, at Irak besad masseødelæggelsesvåben, 100 % enige, og det var forkert, og vi endte i ét eneste stort rod.«

Udenrigsminister Tillerson, på vej til G20-mødet, der begynder fredag, sagde til pressen, at det vigtigste på topmødet mellem Trump og Putin fredag »er at få en god diskussion mellem præsident Trump og præsident Putin om det, de begge ser som arten af denne relation mellem vore to lande«. Han bemærkede, at, i Syrien, »påbegyndte vi en indsats … for at genopbygge tillid mellem os selv og Rusland på det militære niveau, men også det diplomatiske niveau. Jeg mener, at denne indsats tjener begge vore interesser, såvel som også det internationale samfunds generelle interesser«.

Trump vil også mødes med Xi Jinping fredag. Han har allerede offentligt erklæret, at han ønsker, at Amerika skal samarbejde med Kina om Bælte & Vej Initiativet; den Nye Silkevej. Samtidig vil en stor gruppe ledende, kinesiske landbrugseksperter tale ved et arrangement i Manhattan fredag, med Schiller Instituttet som medsponsor, sammen med også Helga Zepp-LaRouche og flere ledende, amerikanske landmænd og landbrugsfolk, om det presserene nødvendige i globalt samarbejde for at imødekomme den voksende hungersnødkrise i verden. FAO rapporterede i denne uge, at antallet af underernærede mennesker i verden atter var voksende og demonstrerede behovet for samarbejde for at udvide den videnskab og teknologi, der er nødvendig for at brødføde hver eneste borger i verden.

Trump har forpligtet sig til at afslutte krige for »regimeskifte«, arbejde sammen med Rusland om bekæmpelse af terrorisme og arbejde sammen med Kina om den Nye Silkevej. Han har også forpligtet sig til at gennemføre Glass-Steagall for at gøre en ende på Wall Streets hasardspilsoperationer og vende tilbage til Hamitons tradition med det Amerikanske Systems dirigerede kredit til den fysiske økonomi og Det almene Vel. Vil han gøre det? De kommende dages historiske begivenheder vil på afgørende vis besvare dette spørgsmål.

Leder fra LaRouche PAC, 3. juli, 2017 – Koncerten i Carnegie Hall, New York, i slutningen af sidste uge og det efterfølgende symposium for at hædre Sylvia Olden Lees arbejde, samt den forestående konference, »Mad for Fred«, i slutningen af denne uge, udgør de to »bogstøtter«, der leverer det idémæssige lederskab og den programmatiske direktion for det, der er i færd med at blive én af de mest dramatiske uger for internationalt diplomati i nyere historie.

For det første er der topmødet den 4. juli i Moskva mellem den russiske præsident Vladimir Putin og den kinesiske præsident Xi Jinping, med forventede resultater, der har fået begge sider til at karakterisere mødet som »årets begivenhed«. De planlægger at konsolidere koordineringen af Kinas Bælte & Vej Initiativ med den russiskledede Eurasisk Økonomisk Union; de vil åbne nye områder for videnskabeligt samarbejde, inklusive det Arktiske Område; og de har til hensigt at arbejde tæt sammen for at bekæmpe terrorisme, narkotikahandelen og andre trusler mod global sikkerhed.

Som Helga Zepp-LaRouche bemærkede i dag, så tager Xi-Putin-topmødet form af det afgørende spørgsmål i denne strategiske kombination af begivenheder. Derimod truer G20-mødet den 7. – 8. juli i Hamborg med at blive mere et gadekarneval end et seriøst topmøde: USA’s finansminister Steven Mnuchin og Tysklands finansminister Wolfgang Schäuble har gjort fælles sag i et forsøg på at bandlyse enhver diskussion af en seriøs finansreform, såsom Glass-Steagall og LaRouches Fire Love, som alene ville kunne give G20-topmødet mening og gøre den transatlantiske sektor i stand til at tilslutte sig Bælte & Vej Initiativet.

Men de såkaldte »sidelinjer« af G20-topmødet ser ud til at blive langt mere produktive end den formelle dagsorden, som Merkel-regeringen har sat for selve topmødet. Statsoverhovederne for Kina, Japan, Sydkorea og selvfølgelig USA har planlagt mange møder på sidelinjerne af topmødet. Ruslands Putin har planlagt ikke færre end 11 bilaterale møder på topmødets sidelinjer – og dette omfatter ikke hans forventede møde med den amerikanske præsident Donald Trump, det møde, der »er afgørende, og som alle har ventet på«, med Kreml-assistent Yuri Ushakovs ord.

Hvis USA, Rusland og Kina kan arbejde sammen, kommenterede Helga Zepp-LaRouche, så findes der en vej ud af den nuværende sammenbrudskrise. Dette vil kræve en desarmering af de multiple provokationer, som det bankerotte Britiske Imperium lægger i vejen for dem – fra Syrien til det Sydkinesiske Hav og til Koreahalvøen – og de må nødvendigvis adressere krisen med finanssammenbruddet, som er det Damoklessværd, der hænger over Vesten, og det må ske gennem de eneste programmatiske og idémæssige redskaber, der vil virke: nemlig dem, som Lyndon LaRouche har foreskrevet i sine »Fire Love«.

Foto: Et billede fra Hongkongs spektakulære fyrværkeriforestilling, i anledning af markeringen af 20-året for briternes overrækkelse af Hongkong til kinesisk myndighed, juni, 2017. (Telegraph/Youtube screen grab)

26. juni, 2017 – En stærk støtte til genindførelse af Glass/Steagall-loven fra en ny, institutionel kilde forekom i Credit Union Times fra 21. juni, der siger, publikationen udsendes til omkring 11.000 kreditunioner. Artiklen, skrevet af Kathy Geary og Bernhard McLaughlin, begge præsidenter for kooperative kreditinstitutter (kreditunioner), kaldte USA’s Senatshøring i Bankkomiteen for »den officielle begyndelse af debatten om en 21. århundredes version af Glass/Steagall-loven«, og støttede senator Elizabeth Warren i den dags konfrontation med finansminister Steven Mnuchin.

»Enhver ny form for Glass-Steagall, uanset, hvordan den skrues sammen for den aktuelle økonomiske situation, ville blive voldsomt modarbejdet af bankindustrien«, skriver Geary og McLaughlin. »Den Amerikanske Banksammenslutning (ABA) erklærede, ’Der er, inklusive blandt alle vore banktilsynsmyndigheder, bred enighed om, at Glass-Steagall ikke ville have forhindret krisen eller kollapset på ejendomsmarkedet’ … En ikke overraskende erklæring, i betragtning af kilden.

»Denne debat er vigtig for kreditunioner, fordi den vil afgøre, hvorvidt banker vil bevare evnen til at udføre både kommercielle bankaktiviteter og risikable investeringsbankaktiviteter under samme tag, eller ej. Desværre forspildte vores industri, i det umiddelbare kølvand af finanskrisen i 2008, chancen for effektivt at fastslå, at vi ikke startede branden, og at en ubegrænset bankindustri havde størstedelen af skylden …«

Deres konklusion er at kræve en mobilisering. »I takt med, at Glass/Steagall-debatten udspilles i de kommende måneder, er kravet til kreditunioner klart. Vi anmoder om, at kreditunioner, sammenslutninger af kreditunioner og vore to, nationale handelssammenslutninger slår sig sammen til én stemme i denne vigtige debat om en Glass/Steagall-version for det 21. Århundrede. At ignorere det kunne lægge vores industri, vore medlemmer og hele vores land åbent for en gentagelse af krisen i 2008.«

Samtidig med, at artiklen blev udgivet, fremviste American Bankers Associations (ABA) »topmedlemmer«, de 34 største, amerikanske banker, et fremskrevet tab på $500 mia. i en »recessionstest«, der blev kørt af Federal Reserve (USA’s centralbank) og FDIC (USA’s Statens Indskudsgarantifond).

Tab på $21 mia. blev fremskrevet for en enkelt bank, Capital One; tabene var koncentreret om selskabsgæld, kreditkortgæld og modparters betalingsstandsning (derivatmarkeder).

Foto: Viser uret ét minut i tolv til finanskollaps?

28. juni, 2017 – Direktør for Federal Reserve, USA’s centralbank, Janet Yellen, har meddelt, at der ikke kommer flere finanskriser »i vores levetid«, under en offentlig ordveksling den 27. juni i London med præsident for British Academy, Lord Nicholas Stern, en af verdens førende ’grønne’ folkemordstilhængere. Yellen pralede med, hvordan alle de store amerikanske banker havde bestået første del af deres stress-tests, hvilket førte til, at hun proklamerede: »Jeg mener, at systemet er langt mere sikkert og solidt« end i 2008.

Pam Martens beskrev, i sin Wall Street on Parade-klumme i dag, meget korrekt Yellens latterlige påstand som »en illusion, bygget på kviksand«. Han tilføjede, at »Yellen nu med faste skridt følger i præsident Barack Obamas fodspor med hensyn til at vildlede offentligheden om risiciene ved de derivater, der stadig eksisterer i Wall Street-storbankerne«.

Martens, der er tilhænger af Glass-Steagall, rettede fingeren direkte mod derivatboblen og spurgte, om det var muligt, at Yellen kunne være »uvidende om den systemiske risiko, der udgøres af derivaterne, der stadig er på USA’s største, garanterede indskudsbankers regnskaber. Deres derivat-modparter ville forsøge at få fat i kapital før sidemanden, hvilket ville få rygterne til at svirre og drive bankernes aktiepriser ned på børsen, hvilket yderligere ville forstærke panikken ved at udslette for milliarder af dollars i aktiekapital«.

Det er EIR’s vurdering, at der i øjeblikket er $1,5 billiard og opefter i totale, globale finansaktiver, af hvilke ca. 90 % er derivater – en totalt uerholdelig, kriminel, spekulativ boble, der ganske enkelt må udslettes med en Glass/Steagall-reorganisering af hele finanssystemet, hjemme og ude, sådan, som Lyndon LaRouche gentagent har forklaret.

… Ifølge det Kinesiske Udenrigsministeriums rapport om mødet, responderede præsident Trump til denne udtalelse fra rådgiver Yang ved at sige, at han – præsident Trump – ville være åben over for at samarbejde med Kina om Bælte & Vej Initiativet og hermed relaterede projekter. Han sagde, han er tilfreds med de positive fremskridt, der er sket i de kinesisk-amerikanske relationer, siden sit møde med præsident Xi i Mar-a-Lago. Og han meddelte, at han planlægger at besøge Kina inden for det næste (nuværende) år.

Matthew Ogden: Med mig i studiet i dag har jeg Paul Gallagher, redaktør for EIR’s økonomiske stof, og som har været meget aktiv i Washington, D.C., i den eskalerede kamp for genindførelsen af Glass/Steagall og resten af hr. LaRouches Fire Økonomiske Love i Hamiltons tradition. Han har mange opdateringer til os på denne front. Og via video har vi Diane Sare, LaRouche PAC Policy koordinator for New York, med os fra Manhattan. Hun har netop skrevet en artikel med titlen, »Gullivers rejse til Manhattan! Kun LaRouches Fire Love og Kinas Bælte & Vej Initiativ kan løse Manhattans infrastrukturkrise.« (EIR, 23. juni). Som vi alle ved, venter »Helvedessommeren« forude i New York City, mht. transportinfrastruktur.

Jeg vil straks begynde med nogle meget signifikante udviklinger i kampen for at bringe USA ind i den Nye Silkevej, ind i Kinas Bælte & Vej Initiativ. For det første vil jeg rapportere direkte, at Xinhua, et kinesisk nyhedsmedie, rapporterer, at præsident Donald Trump i går mødtes med Kinas statsrådgiver Yang Jiechi i Det Hvide Hus, og til statsrådgiveren Yang sagde, at USA er villig til at samarbejde om projekter relateret til det kinesiske Bælte & Vej Initiativ. De to havde dette møde i Det Hvide Hus som en del af statsrådgiver Yangs besøg til Washington; dette var et møde på højt niveau. Og, iflg. nyhedsrapporter, sagde Yang til præsident Trump, at Kina var meget tilfreds med, meget glad over og satte meget stor pris på det faktum, at Trump-administrationen havde besluttet at sende en repræsentant på højt plan – Matthew Pottinger – til at deltage i Bælte & Vej Forum i Beijing i sidste måned. Vi har rapporteret, at denne repræsentant for USA var en beslutning i sidste sekund fra Trumps side, og at det var en meget god beslutning. Rådgiver Yang sagde også til Donald Trump, at Kina ville være villig til at arbejde sammen med USA om Bælte & Vej Initiativet. Ifølge det Kinesiske Udenrigsministeriums rapport om mødet, responderede præsident Trump til denne udtalelse fra rådgiver Yang ved at sige, at han – præsident Trump – ville være åben over for at samarbejde med Kina om Bælte & Vej Initiativet og hermed relaterede projekter. Han sagde, han er tilfreds med de positive fremskridt, der er sket i de kinesisk-amerikanske relationer, siden sit møde med præsident Xi i Mar-a-Lago. Og han meddelte, at han planlægger at besøge Kina inden for det næste (nuværende) år. Dette blev bekræftet af udenrigsminister Rex Tillerson i en pressekonference, han holdt onsdag. Præsident Trump rapporterede ligeledes, at han ser frem til igen at mødes med præsident Xi Jinping ved G20-topmødet i Hamborg, Tyskland, i juli måned. Det var første punkt, og det er naturligvis en meget signifikant udvikling.

Det andet punkt er, at der samtidig, dagen før dette møde mellem præsident Trump og statsrådgiver Yang, var en møde på højt niveau mellem tidligere kinesiske regeringsfolk og amerikanske erhvervsledere på højt niveau, i regi af et bilateralt eller fælles møde, der fandt sted mellem USA’s Handelskammer – der repræsenterer førende, amerikanske erhvervsinteresser – og Kinas Center for Internationale Økonomiske Udvekslinger, der er en regeringstilknyttet tænketank med base i Beijing. Under dette møde udstedte disse to grupper et fælleskommunike, der promoverede fælles samarbejde mellem USA og Kina.

Her følger resten af webcastet på engelsk:

So, I’m going to put on the screen here a picture of this
meeting that occurred [Fig. 1].  As you can see, it’s the 9th
U.S.-China CEO and Former Senior Officials Dialogue; jointly
sponsored by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the China Center
for International Economic Exchanges.  What the joint communiqué
reports is that not only would the U.S. businessmen be interested
in joint cooperation on the Belt and Road, but they would also be
interested in cooperation on building U.S. infrastructure here
domestically.  So you can see here a direct quote from their
communiqué.  This is under the subtitle “Strengthening Investment
Cooperation Under the Framework of Belt and Road Initiative and
Through Other Means.”  So, here’s what it says:
“Investment is an important driver of China-U.S. trade
relations and the growth of the two economies.  There is great
potential for the two sides to further expand mutual investment.
China’s Belt and Road Initiative, which has spurred investment in
infrastructure building, will considerably broaden the space for
Chinese and U.S. investment and open many opportunities for
Chinese and U.S. companies to cooperate in third countries.
Significant participation by U.S. companies, including in
partnership with Chinese companies, can make new contributions to
the furtherance of China-U.S. economic and trade relations.  In
certain areas, U.S. companies can offer the world’s best
technology and management capability, thereby helping to insure
smooth and efficient completion of Belt and Road projects.
Infrastructure building in the U.S. will generate an enormous
need for investment, and the new U.S. administration has
indicated that this is a major priority.  China has strong
capabilities and cost advantages in infrastructure building,
including the building of urban roads, expressways, fly-overs,
high-speed rail, and ports.”
It goes on to say: “Chinese companies and financial
institutions are ready to contribute to this effort through
financing and through the provision of goods and services.
Chinese investment in certain areas of U.S. infrastructure
development has the potential to help strengthen business
relations between the two sides, and in some cases, speed up
completion of the needed projects at lower cost and with greater
efficiency.  Both sides agreed that the two countries can engage
in full cooperation under the Belt and Road Initiative and
through a number of other means, including the Asia
Infrastructure Investment Bank, the World Bank, and other
multilateral investment and financing institutions.”
Then it has a subtitle:  “Agreed Action”
“Within the next twelve months, the CCIEE and the U.S.
Chamber of Commerce will organize a conference on the Belt and
Road in China or in the United States; which will allow the
Chinese side to brief the U.S. side on the Belt and Road plans,
including initiative content, current progress and projects that
might be appropriate for U.S. company participation, including in
partnership with the Chinese companies.  The U.S. side will brief
the Chinese side on the latest infrastructure developments in the
United States and share reflections on pathways for Chinese
companies to participate in U.S. infrastructure revitalization
initiatives.”
So, this is a very important development.  And now, third,
here’s an article from {China Daily} which reports on a rather
extraordinary forum that happened in San Francisco yesterday,
which was titled “2017: U.S.-China Transportation Cooperation
Forum.”  Before I get to the next slide, just see here, the
beginning of the article.  It’s titled “Chinese Builders Wanted
in the U.S..”  The beginning of the article says, “Chinese
infrastructure techniques are urgently needed to rehabilitate
America’s poorly maintained and in some cases dilapidated bridges
and road system, industry experts from both countries agree.  The
fact that the U.S., the world’s most economically and
technologically powerful country, should import fast-train
know-how from a developing China, reflects a new normal for
China-U.S. cooperation and communication.”  Then, the article
quotes Chinese Consul-General to San Francisco Luo Linquan, who
gave the keynote.  He said, “China and the U.S. cooperation on
the infrastructure front is posed to become the new highlight in
the trade engagement between the two countries.  California along
with its neighboring states has especially close trade relations
with China,” he added. “The import and export volume between this
region and China has mounted to more than $201 billion in 2016.
The One Belt, One Road Initiative was conceived in China,” he
added, “but it provides a global platform for economic
development for all the countries participating.”
So clearly, all three of these are extraordinary
developments, highlighted by this meeting in the White House,
where Donald Trump said — according to Chinese reports — that
the United States would be happy to participate in the Belt and
Road Initiative.  This is clearly coming along very rapidly; and
as Helga LaRouche said when she was briefed on these developments
earlier today, she said “Remember, it was only three years ago,
in 2014, that the LaRouche movement put out the call for the
United States to join the Silk Road.”  I think you can remember
the pamphlet that was printed by the LaRouche Political Action
Committee that was called “A Hamiltonian Vision for the Future of
the United States:  The United States Joins the New Silk Road.”
But Helga LaRouche said, at that point — 2014 — this idea was
almost unheard of.  But now, as you can see from these
developments and otherwise, this initiative has really gained
prominence and is becoming a dominant reality.  It is very
urgently needed.  “We’ve seen a very significant victory,” she
said, “on this front; and we should recognize it as such.”  She
said, “I think an appropriate for this is ‘Ideas Matter; Ideas
Shape History’.”
I think you can really expect the consolidation of this with
the meeting between Trump and Xi at the G20 summit in July.  And
I think we can also see some dramatic developments between the
potential for a bilateral meeting — and this is becoming more
solid as the days go on — between Trump and Putin.  But, as the
lead article on the LaRouche PAC website states very clearly
today, although it’s widely expected that President Trump and
President Putin will meet for the first time on the sidelines of
this G20 summit, it’s very clear that the opponents of this
world-changing event of the United States-Russia-China
cooperation, are doing everything they can in an hysterical
fashion, to try to undermine this before it ever happens, to
force the cancellation, to cause it to become totally hostile, or
to cause there to be no positive progress that can be made out of
such a summit.  You see this crazy Russian sanctions bill that
was rammed through the Senate 98-2; you can see the efforts by
the U.S. forces shooting down this Syrian jet over Syrian
territory, which has the potential to develop very rapidly.  This
forced the Russians to again terminate the non-confliction
hotline between the United States and Russia.  You can see Steve
Mnuchin’s efforts to levy new sanctions against 38 Russian and
Ukrainian firms and individuals.  Then you can see this F-16 that
buzzed the military aircraft that was carrying Russian Defense
Minister Shoigu.  All of these are very dangerous, and are
obviously planned to try to derail any potential for a positive
relationship between the United States and Russia.
One only has to read this hysterical article in the
{Washington Post} today, “Obama’s Secret Struggle to Punish
Russia for Putin’s Election Assault,” which only continues this
false narrative.

PAUL GALLAGHER:  Not so secret.

OGDEN:  Not so secret.  So, that gives you a picture of
where we stand, but a very optimistic picture, as Helga LaRouche
underlined; if we see in terms of the potential for this United
States New Silk Road, New Paradigm consolidation.  But it’s very
urgent that this happen as well.  That was why I asked both Paul
and Diane to join me on the show today.
First, I’d like to ask Diane to go through a little bit of
what you have in this article.  As I said, it’s titled “Gulliver
Travels to Manhattan! Only LaRouche’s Four Laws and the Belt and
Road Can Save Manhattan Infrastructure Crisis.”  So Diane.

DIANE SARE:  Sure.  I was inspired, if one can call it that,
by my attendance at a Cranes, New York real estate conference,
where they had three panels.  The way it was billed was that —
and they had the CEO of the Port Authority, and the building
trades union, and Staten Island and Brooklyn.  And given what’s
about to happen here, which people may or may not be aware of,
basically we are at a total breakdown point in the greater
Manhattan area.  During the day in Manhattan, you have about 3.1
million people; at night, it’s about 1.8 million.  There’s
something between 1.5 million and 1.8 million who commute into
the city to the island of Manhattan on a daily basis.  That’s a
very large traffic flow.  Penn Station handles about 650,000
people a day; I think that’s triple what it was built for.
Similarly, every other major transit point, whether it’s coming
in from Long Island and Brooklyn across the East River, or coming
in from New Jersey on the western side, everything is completely
overloaded; at or well above capacity.  So now, the system itself
is anywhere from 70 to 100 years old, and very little maintenance
or repair or upgrading has been done.  We’re using switching
systems which were built before World War II largely; I think
they’ve modernized one line so far, and another one will be done
in a few years.  It really is insane.
So, I went to this conference, because starting on July 10,
since there were two train derailments in early April in Penn
Station on the tracks there, they’ve decided they cannot put off
repairing those tracks.  But of course, to repair tracks, then
you cannot use them while you’re repairing them.  They’re saying
they’re going to have to reduce the traffic coming in from Long
Island by 20%; I don’t know what the percentage is from New
Jersey, but it’s probably something similar or greater.  I know
the commuter routes from Essex and Morris Counties, which include
commuters coming in from Pennsylvania who go to various places
and then take a train into Penn Station, that’s all going to be
rerouted into Hoboken; the PATH system which is also overloaded.
At any rate, these repairs start on the 10th of July, and they’re
going to be going on for at least six weeks or longer.  Who
really knows, frankly?
There’s no redundancy.  This is a system that any section of
it that you shut down, if you’re talking about transit points
that are already functioning or not functioning I should say, at
over capacity.  And you’re going to add 20% more traffic, or 30%
more traffic, or 50% more traffic to it; you could have a total
breakdown of everything.  None of the plans I’ve seen so far
really are adequate.  I don’t know what they’re going to do as
they get closer; maybe they’re going to have to have people come
into work on rotating shifts, people’s hours are going to change,
I don’t know.  But at any rate, I was hoping that this conference
might address it.  What I heard there — and it’s not as though
these speakers were completely incompetent or were not aware of
the crisis in some way — but what you saw was that people’s
thinking has been so warped.  One, as I said in the article, by
this Bertrand Russell legacy that there’s no such thing as a
creative idea, or a new idea; but that everything is an algebraic
system of linear deduction.  Of course, from that standpoint, you
could never conceptualize where this region should be in 50 or
100 years.
So, the things that they were proposing be done, like
turning Rikers Island into a part of LaGuardia Airport —
LaGuardia Airport, as people may know who have travelled into New
York, is very much overloaded.  They don’t have the space for the
number of flights that are coming in, and they’re projecting that
by 2030 there will be another 30 million people per year trying
to fly into the city.  So, how do you handle this?  They said,
well we need 75 more flight operations per hour.  Taking over all
of Rikers Island for this and a new wastewater treatment plant,
only gives you an increase of 30 more flight operations per hour.
So, why would you do that?  What is the point of investing in
something that doesn’t even meet either the current needs or what
you are projecting?  It’s really insane.  So, you have that
factor; and the other factor is the funding, which I think Paul
may deal with more; but the idea that everything can only be done
through public-private partnerships.  As people know, my
colleague Bill Roberts has an article in the same issue of {EIR}
about the Soo Locks, where of course they figured out in 1986
that this is a key transshipment point for coal and other things
in the United States; and they really needed to be repaired and
modernized.  So, this was approved in 1986, but they concluded
that you’d only make back 75 cents on the dollar of what was
invested.  Clearly by Bertrand Russell-type methods, where it’s
all linear, because if you cause 11 million people to be
unemployed, which is what would happen if this thing wasn’t done,
that’s not taken into account.
Similarly, the speaker at this conference from Brooklyn,
showed pictures of the damage from Hurricane Sandy, which were
horrific; I was here in New Jersey when that occurred.  We didn’t
have electricity for about two weeks; it was very damaging, very
devastating.  There were several proposals made in 2009 at a
conference in Manhattan for storm surge barriers.  My favorite
was a five-mile one that went from Sandy Hook in New Jersey to
the Rockaways.  So you go across the whole area before you even
get to Staten Island, and it would have an underground tunnel and
it would have gates that came up; but normally the ocean would be
flowing through.  I think that would cost something like $6
billion.  I can see these silly accountants with their
mathematical methods saying $6 billion, what’s the profit?  Well,
how about saving $80 billion?  $6 billion versus $80 billion in
damage when you get one of these storms.  But nonetheless, they
decided not to build it, and we got what we got with Hurricane
Sandy.  So, because of the way people think in terms of
worshipping money, as opposed to seeing money as a means of
credit generation, or as a means of figuring out how to measure
the cost of an improvement that you need; which will lead
ultimately to the increase in the productivity of your
population.
What does it mean when you say we want our standard of
living to be higher?  Well, that doesn’t mean having seven
television sets in every room as opposed to one, or something
like that.  When you say the standard of living, we mean things
like life expectancy, being free from disease, being better
educated.  How many Americans speak only one language, and maybe
that’s an exaggeration to say that Americans even speak a
language.  Many people now do not have a very good command of the
English language, which is our language in this country.  In
other words, how many Americans know how to read music?  How many
Americans have conducted basic scientific experiments in school;
have ever tried to make a painting or a work of art or write a
poem?  In other words, by standard of living you mean that
there’s a life expectancy which allows for a young person to be
educated to the age of 22, 25, 28; and then that person has an
adult lifespan in which they’re still developing and learning.
You can get human beings developing a quality of genius which
contributes to the future for all mankind.
The only reason for money, is to create a situation where
you can think in those terms.  That the people living 100 and 200
years from now will live longer, be healthier, be better
educated, and be better; which is what you would want.  Who
really wants to be the best of all time?  That means, in effect,
that your life is meaningless, if everything coming after you is
going to be worse than you.  So, that’s the point of economy; but
none of these people was thinking that way at all.  It really
struck me that here we are sitting on potential complete chaos;
you already had two weeks ago, there was a subway that got stuck,
and it didn’t have air conditioning because the power was out.
So you had people packed in this car, and the temperatures were
getting to 100 degrees, it was like a sauna in there.  No one
could move for 45 minutes and they were on the brink — as you
might imagine — of getting completely panicked.  Happily, no one
had a heart attack or other medical disaster, but it does make
people nervous.  A few days ago, another subway car was stalled
out, so people went out the back exit and got down on the track
and started walking to the station.  That’s extremely dangerous.
What happens if you lose all order because people just panic
because they don’t know if they’re going to reach their
destination?  They don’t want to be stuck in a subway for hours
on end.  We’re really on the brink of a situation like that.
People would be prepared to tolerate hardship if they knew that
there was a plan to actually address it.
For example, if President Trump, as a result of his
dialogues with Xi Jinping and President Putin, were to say “Look,
we actually think the Bering Strait tunnel should be built within
the next decade; and we’re going to launch a crash program with
China and Russia to develop high-speed rail corridors across the
United States.  So that Manhattan really should be connected with
Paris; and that’s something that will happen.  I’m going to
initiate that in my Presidency, and it’s something that will be
completed during a future administration.”  Now knowing Trump,
he’d probably say “Well, it has to be done within my first term.”
But at any rate, what would that mean for Manhattan?  What kind
of infrastructure would you want to have in place?  If you had
high-speed rail connecting Washington D.C., Philadelphia,
Manhattan, New York City, and Boston, then you would know that
you might have a free flow of people in the entire northeastern
coastline — this huge metropolitan area — because you’re
talking about taking an hour to travel from D.C. to New York.
So, what does that mean?  What do you want New York City to look
like under those circumstances?  Maybe we have to consider taking
advantage of this massive 22% of New Jersey’s land areas in the
Pine Barrens, and convert part of that into a large city where
part of the population of New York City could be relocated, while
you build something which is actually appropriate.  But no one is
thinking in this way.
Apparently, plans have been made, as we know with the Soo
Locks, plans have been made.  There are engineers who are highly
competent who are aware of these things, who know that there are
limits on the life expectancy of cast iron and things like that.
They may have long life expectancies, but there is a point at
which things begin to corrode and things like that.  So, plans
have been made, plans exist.  But where do you get the funding to
implement it?  What is the magnitude of these plans?  If the
population were aware that such a thing existed, that is was
going to be set into motion, then people would be prepared to put
up with a certain amount of hardship; probably very happily,
knowing that their children were going to live in a much more
beautiful and functioning location than we currently do now.
So, this is the battle.  And I think Matt, what you reported
just at the beginning of this show, in terms of the commitment of
President Trump to work with the Chinese, the commitment of the
U.S. Chamber of Commerce explicitly to collaborate with the Belt
and Road Initiative; this is extremely promising, and should
absolutely be promoted.

OGDEN:  Well, I think those scare stories you have from New
York City should probably encourage people that this is a rather
urgent initiative.  I know from talking to Paul, that you have a
few more scare stories that you might want to share with us.  I’m
going to just let you go through a few of those also.

GALLAGHER:  Well, I’m going to come back to this.  I wanted
to just briefly sketch the fight around Glass-Steagall; but I’m
going to come back to this in particular on the character of the
PPPs — public-private partnerships — as actually “poison pill
policy,” which is really threatening this entire potential for
collaboration, China-U.S. collaboration both on the Belt and
Road, and also starting with the Bering Strait Tunnel.  Also in
regard to infrastructure in North America and infrastructure in
the United States.
But on Glass-Steagall, let me just indicate, you have a very
stark comparison in terms of infrastructure investment between
the United States and China.  In the United States, about $300
billion is invested in infrastructure every year, and that is,
every school, every hospital, every road job, every subdivision’s
new sewer and water and optical fiber, and so forth — that is
absolutely everything, public, private, local, Federal, amounts
to about that much investment.  In China, the four major state
banks which provide the credit for the infrastructure
breakthroughs that have been made in China, those four banks
issue about $140 billion worth of credit annually for high-speed
rail in China alone.  And just that form of advanced
infrastructure and just that public investment by those four
national banks:  the Exim Bank, the China Development Bank, the
other China policy banks, as they’re called.  That investment in
just high-speed rail is half of the total investment made by the
United States — public, private, in every form, on every kind of
infrastructure and every public band-aide that’s put on, and
claimed as infrastructure, every year.
In addition, those banks in China have invested and
committed $300 billion just in the three years since the Belt and
Road Initiative of President Xi began to take off, and that $300
billion invested and committed by those banks is outside China.
So that’s going on simultaneously with the large-scale
investments in completely frontier, including things like maglev
subways, in the major cities of China, and there are many, many,
many major cities in China as people know.
So this is widely in the financial press in the United
States and Europe, the old imperial liberal order defends itself
by saying, “This credit issuance of China can’t possibly be
sustained.  There will be a tremendous, earthshattering collapse
of all of this infrastructure credit, because the banks — it has
dwarfed even what the Federal Reserve has done for the banks
here, and for a good purpose, and it can be sustained; it’ll all
blow up.”  There is a very fundamental difference here, though,
in that China, for the last 20 years has had bank separation; it
has many shadow banks, it has a lot of investment companies
involved in broker-dealers, but they are completely separated
from the both private commercial banking system, which they want
to build up further, and also from this kind of public banking.
So that these banks are not involved in the $550 trillion
derivatives exposure of the banks in London and New York.  These
banks are not involved in securities speculation.  They are able
to handle bankruptcies; they’re able to handle non-performing
loans when they appear in various sectors as the economy
develops.  So, Glass-Steagall, although they don’t call that law
“Glass-Steagall” in China, that bank separation is important to
what they are able to do and the fact that they’ve been doing it
now for 20 years on a level of spending nearly 9% of their GDP on
new infrastructure every year, for more than 20 years.  Compare
that to the United States, which spends about 1.3% of its GDP now
on infrastructure annually. They’ve been able to do that, and
keep it up.
Now, we’ve been fighting for Glass-Steagall in Washington.
It’s really taken on much more of the characteristics of a good
brawl, in the recent weeks.  It’s become a big public fight, for
one thing, where you have on the one hand, especially for the
last two months, three months,  — on the one hand, you have all
the financial press and the major national {Wall Street Journal,
Washington Post, New York Times}, running all kinds of editorials
and op-eds on why Glass-Steagall is not necessary, why it’s
terrible, why it’s completely outdated;  it was only repealed 20
years ago, but it’s completely outdated, practically a relic of
the Middle Ages, why it didn’t have anything to do with the crash
in 2008, and so on and so forth.  You have that going on, you
have think tanks in Washington, like Heritage Foundation and
American Enterprise Institute running whole events which consist
of nothing but examining Glass-Steagall.  I went to one recently,
at the American Enterprise Institute, where six different
speakers were attacking Glass-Steagall.  The only person in the
room who was fighting for Glass-Steagall was me, and I was not
one of the speakers.
So you have these kinds of attacks on it, but also the
sponsors.  The main sponsors of the House bill, Marcy Kaptur (D)
of Ohio, Walter Jones (R) of North Carolina, the Republican main
sponsor, have started to really fight publicly.  They had a
public press conference when they introduced the bill three and a
half months ago with 25 sponsors.  They now have about 55
sponsors as a result of fighting for it publicly since then.
This is a much faster rate of getting sponsors onto the bill than
was the case in the last session, where eventually there were
about 85 sponsors after two years of work.  But in this case, the
week before last they had a congressional briefing for the staffs
of Congressmen throughout the House, about somewhere between 35
and 40 other Congressmen sent their staffs to this briefing, so
it was really quite a packed event in one of the office
buildings, to take notes and report back to their Members of
Congress.  And not only Kaptur and Jones, but also experts from
the AFL-CIO, from the Americans for Financial Reform, from Public
Citizen; Nomi Prins, an independent, former investment banker and
author on banking, independent expert — they all testified.  And
this is causing a tremendous amount of discussion throughout the
House in particular.
On the Senate side, the leading sponsors have all made it a
point to draw out the Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin, and make
it clear that what he was advising Donald Trump to do during the
campaign essentially, was not the real Glass-Steagall or anything
like it; but rather Mnuchin’s advice to Trump during his
campaign, was to talk about Glass-Steagall while Mnuchin
privately was designing something which was really Wall Street
deregulation like the bill that recently passed the House.
So the fact that they have really broken Mnuchin down on
this and made him say “No, no, no, I don’t believe in anything
like separating commercial and investment banking.”  This has
also dramatically clarified issues for people in both the Senate
and the House.  And secondly, we have begun to get close to the
mobilization of large organizations, large trade unions,
coalition organizations like Public Citizen, and in this I don’t
mean them endorsing Glass-Steagall, I mean them mobilizing their
hundreds and hundreds of thousands of members to demand this from
Congress.  We’ve come very close to getting to that stage, and in
particular you saw last week a broadcast that Public Citizen ran
on their Facebook page with Rep. Marcy Kaptur, in which they were
motivating and calling on their reportedly 400,000 members to go
after Congress to get this.
So the objective is to get from the 55 sponsors now to 100
— fast.  Because it’s not so important in the Senate, to pile up
a lot of sponsors — there are only a 100 Senators. It’s very
important in the House, when the leadership of both parties is
against Glass-Steagall, which they are: Both the Republican and
the Democratic leadership do not want to see it; the Democratic
leadership wants to cling onto this failed Dodd-Frank Bill, and
pretend that Obama came up with something nice there.  And the
Republican leadership wants to give Wall Street every kind of
deregulation that they’ve ever asked for.
So in that situation, it is crucial to get to 100 sponsors.
This is the stated objective of the major sponsors in the House
and when they do that, then they really want to go public and
start to hold the kind of press conferences and press bugging of
other Members which will get widely covered in the media and
really  make this into a bigger brawl.
So that’s just an indication of some of the things we have
been getting going.  And one of the arguments that Jones and
Kaptur have started to use, for example when they — I didn’t
mention this, but they also went to the Rules Committee when it
was marking up this crazy Republican deregulation bill called the
“Financial CHOICE Act.”  They went to the Rules Committee with an
amendment that said, strike CHOICE Act, take it away, and put
Glass-Steagall reinstatement in its place, and that’s our
amendment.” So they got to make a fight in front of the Rules
Committee on that.
But they’ve begun to make the very coherent argument that
not only did Glass-Steagall’s elimination lead directly to the
crash in 2008; there’s no need to go over this now, it’s the most
obvious thing in the world to most thinking Americans.  It’s like
the guy who ate nothing but McDonalds food for four months and
after four or five months his organs were failing, he was
catastrophically obese, he was near death!  And this is like
saying “there was no connection, there were other factors that
brought this guy into this condition.  It wasn’t the McDonald’s
Big Macs that he was eating.”  That’s what it amounts to to tell
Americans that less than 10 years after getting rid of
Glass-Steagall, the whole banking system blew up simultaneously,
which has never, for all of the major banks to be bankrupt at the
same time, as Ben Bernanke admitted they were, has never happened
in the entire history of the United States.  It took less than 10
years without Glass-Steagall to bring that about.
So they also are now arguing that the period in which
Glass-Steagall was in effect, which is also the period in which
the biggest infrastructure investments in new infrastructure in
the United States were being made, from the ’20s, up through the
end of the ’60s and into the ’70s, that that was a golden era of
productivity in the United States.  We had a banking system then,
which concentrated not only on loaning to  — but you see it in
many examples of the history of that period — concentrating on
making commercial and industrial loans to businesses for
expansion and for participation in major projects.  You don’t
have that kind of a banking system without Glass-Steagall;
instead, you have a banking system which wants to underwrite bond
issues for only the biggest corporations, with which they can
play around with their stock prices and so on.  And it brings the
entire economy down.
It gets us right back — and they’re making now the right
argument and very powerful argument, that if we want to rebuild
the United States, and particularly build new, frontier new
infrastructure in the United States, we have to have a commercial
banking system which is separated from securities broker-dealing
and speculation in the derivatives markets; and which is
concentrating on household lending and commercial and industrial
lending to the companies participating in these great projects.
Now, public-private partnership is, again, back to Treasury
Secretary Mnuchin, the conference that was held in Washington
last week, SelectUSA, which was a conference trying to get
foreign investment in the United States.  So this is the Treasury
Department; you’ve already given the context for this, along with
what Diane reported, in terms of the imminent potential,
absolutely imminent potential for large-scale investment,
particularly from China in an infrastructure build in the United
States.  instead, what the Treasury Secretary went there and
offered was, he said:  We want this kind of investment and
public-private partnerships are critical.
Suffice it to say, never in the United States has a major
infrastructure project or major new element of the infrastructure
of the United States, {never} has such a thing been constructed
with a public-private partnership, let alone by private
investment alone.  The Transcontinental Railroad was by no means
a public-private partnership.  And these things simply don’t
work.  The investors in them want their capital back in 10 years,
and they want 10-12% rates of interest in their invested capital
during that 10 years.  Well, that means they want it back, if
it’s anything major, while the thing is still not finished, and
still not being used to a full extent; and they want to
absolutely rob the public taxpayers whose money is going into
such a project.  It simply cannot work, and it will sabotage
foreign investment in new infrastructure building in the United
States if this method is used.
We have a threadbare public investment in infrastructure
now.  What President Trump has spoken about, the time has run out
for him and for the Congress to implement it.  They have to now
create, immediately, a National Bank on the order of $1-2
trillion in capital, in the way that Alexander Hamilton and his
successors in the American System built such National Banks
starting in 1790, through the 19th century.  They have to create
such a bank {now}, so that there is a credit institution here, to
cooperate with the credit institutions like those in China that I
was discussing earlier.
Otherwise, we are really facing disaster.  I’ll give you an
example:  I went to  a Congressional hearing yesterday and talked
to some of the witnesses who were involved in exactly trying to
organize some of the infrastructure developments that Diane
indicated are so needed in the New York area.  One of them is a
bridge over the Hackensack River near Secaucus, New Jersey,
called the Portal Bridge, which is 108 years old.  It was
designed in the 19th century, completed in 1910.  It has ships go
under it by splitting the bridge, but opening as a drawbridge.
All of the rail traffic, freight and passenger, between Florida
and Massachusetts goes over that bridge — all of it!  And that
bridge, when they open it to get a ship go through, when they try
to close it now, 9 times out 10, according to the fellow who
spoke to me there, 9 times out of 10 it doesn’t close properly,
so that rails don’t align.  And they then send workers out on the
concrete abutment of the bridge with sledgehammers, and they
hammer at the iron trusses of the bridge to get the rails to
align.
All that it would take is for them to be able to unable to
get them to align, once, and as he estimated, that would be a
single-point loss of potentially 10% of U.S. gross domestic
product.  Right there.
And then you have, in the Poe Lock, the potential failure of
the Poe Lock between Lake Superior into Lake Huron, and the whole
Mesabi Iron Range, and all of the ships which are carrying all of
the strategic metals, the iron, the coal coming out of Northern
Minnesota, Ontario, the Mesabi Range, all of that would be
stopped:  another 10% of the gross domestic product of the United
States would be frozen and they estimated up to 11 million jobs
would be lost.
So you say, “well of course, they’re replacing this bridge
at Hackensack,” but actually, they’re not!  They don’t have the
funds!  They have a plan, it’s all worked out, it’s engineered,
but the replacement is not under way.
So you have here, the makings of a movie you could call it,
a suspense thriller: “The Bridge over the Hackensack River.”  But
with 10% of the U.S. economy hanging on the guys banging those
rails back into place, but there is not any funding arranged to
replace that bridge.  And you can multiply that for all the other
things that have to be done.
We’re very far from the frontier, national high-speed rail
network, nuclear desalination plants, the Western water
management systems,  — we’re very far from the frontiers in
space infrastructure that we have to be building. We’re actually
threadbare in terms of just continuing to use, and have an
economy, what we already have.
So there’s no time at all left, for these wonderful
prospects by the discussions with the Chinese now at the highest
level, between President Trump and one of the tope people in the
Chinese government, State Councilor Yang Jiechi, for these
wonderful prospects to be backed up by the institution which
issues credit for the United States, a Hamiltonian bank for
investment.  It must be formed.  It must come out of the Congress
with the drive from the White House in order to get it done.

OGDEN:  As you said, time is running out: We’re five months
now into the Trump administration, and you highlighted the role
of Steve Mnuchin:  I think this continues to be a very bad
element in the Trump administration.  And the kind of support
that Trump gained from his support for Glass-Steagall during the
Presidential election campaign, is something that has now — that
has to become visible.  That has to become a visible, vocal, sort
of element from the population, from the constituency.  And I
just want to put on the screen the URL that we have for the
mobilization that we have for H.R.790: That’s the bill that’s in
the House, the “Return to Prudent Banking Act” —

GALLAGHER:  The Glass-Steagall bill.

OGDEN:  Which was introduced by Marcy Kaptur and Walter
Jones.  This is the return to Glass-Steagall.  As you can see,
this is the website:  http://lpac.co/hr790  And I think that this
goal of reaching 100 cosponsors in a very short amount of time,
is a very tangible goal that we can mobilize for, along with this
vision of, the United States joining the New Silk Road.  But
Paul, as I think you just laid out very clearly, that is
impossible without Glass-Steagall.  You cannot set up the kind of
national credit institutions, the national banking credit
institutions that would channel that kind of joint investment
into this infrastructure in the United States, without this
critical first step of the return to Glass-Steagall.
One thing I wanted to ask you about, Paul, is just the
prognosis on how close we could be to another disastrous blowout
of the trans-Atlantic banking system.  I know Nomi Prins did an
interview a few months ago with you, where she highlighted a few
of these things with the corporate debt bubble.  But that’s
something that Marcy Kaptur cited in her testimony to the Rules
Committee, and I think that element of urgency is also necessary
to put in here.
[https://larouchepac.com/20170319/interview-nomi-prins]

GALLAGHER:  We don’t know how much time, because it’s
impossible to put a finger on a date when a really huge and
increasing unproductive debt bubble, in this case, as
Representative Kaptur identified, the corporate debt bubble in
the United States, when it’s going to blow up.  But, the size of
corporate debt in the United States has doubled in seven years,
from about $7 to about $14 trillion, with really the great
majority of that tremendous debt expansion being used for what
they call “financial engineering” by large companies: Meaning
buying back their own stock, mergers and acquisitions, finding
ways to increase the dividends they give to their stockholders,
increasing their own executive compensation — all of this kind
of financial engineering has used in various years up to 80-85%
of this new corporate debt.
What has really suffered in the process has been business
capital investment and the commercial and industrial lending,
which it depends on. So that that tremendously expanding bubble
has stopped expanding.  And this has been noted  rather suddenly,
by everybody from the IMF to individual bank research teams,
since April of this year, that suddenly that tremendous expansion
has stopped; as happens with an immense bubble that’s about to
explode, and it started to shrink.  And there was a report put
out by UBS bank in Switzerland about two weeks ago which caused a
certain amount of alarm, because they found that what they call
the “credit impulse,” had gone negative in the last six months —
they’re talking globally now — meaning that the second
derivative, the rate of the rate of growth of business lending
around the world had suddenly in the last six months become
negative.  And that is something which virtually always points to
a bubble about to collapse.
This is a very huge one, indeed.  The IMF estimated that if
interest rates were to go up sharply in the United States, 20% of
all the companies in the United States would default.  That’s way
above the rate of defaults on mortgages even at the worst 10
years ago; and the whole thing would come crashing down.
So we need the reorganization of the banking system,
urgently, for that reason, also in order to make the commercial
banking side of it proof against this kind of a blowout.  And so
you don’t have, again, a situation in which the bankruptcy of any
investment bank, let’s say, becomes, almost overnight, the
bankruptcy of every major U.S. based bank as happened in late
September 2008.

OGDEN:  I would say, this is real policy.  This is what
anybody who’s serious is discussing right now.  And the failed
decision by the Democratic Party, for example, to just be the
party of resistance, is increasingly proven to be an increasingly
proven to be very ill-advised policy.  And I think even Sen.
Chris Murphy made some headlines this week where he said:  Look,
none of my constituents are talking about “Russia,” when I go
home.  They’re talking about jobs, drugs, poverty.  They’re
talking about exactly what we’re discussing here!  Hmm, gee,
maybe we shouldn’t be pumping anti-Putin propaganda all day every
day.
So, I wanted to ask Diane, you know, we’ve had some
surprising reports — or surprising for some — from the streets
of Manhattan, where you would assume because of the 24-hour-a-day
anti-Putin propaganda that people are being inundated with, that
this would be the only thing that’s on people’s minds.  But as we
saw, the reality on the ground in New York is the collapsing
infrastructure.  This is what people are actually interested in
talking about.  And we’ve had some rather surprising readings
from the population there in New York and northern New Jersey, in
the recent weeks.

SARE:  Sure.  We’ve had numbers of teams set up by the
roadside in New Jersey or right in the middle of the large
sidewalks in Manhattan, with giant signs saying “Defend Trump.
Stop Here.  Donald can’t do it alone, join LaRouche PAC.  The
U.S. must join the Belt and Road.  Russia-Gate Is a Comey Plot!”
And many people are coming up to our tables and we’re actually
getting a very hot response, much more intense than at any period
since the election, with people coming over saying, “You know, I
thought I was the only one.  The propaganda is so intense, I
don’t dare to say that I supported Trump at my workplace.”
We had a very strong response also in Connecticut, Long
Island, Jersey and Manhattan per se, where we are getting this
type of response.
And I also just wanted to add, in light of this crazy
continuing of the story about the alleged Russian hacking which
somehow caused people to change their mind on how they were
voting.  Remember we did just did have the special election for
Congress, in South Carolina and Georgia, where the Democratic
candidates, one of whom I think spent $33 million or some
absolutely obscene amount of money, and still lost the election.
And it’s not because the Republican candidates were so brilliant;
it’s because the population has really had it and this is where,
if President Trump moves in a very big way, very public way to
embrace the Chinese offer, to reinstate the Glass-Steagall Act so
we can have a sane banking system, and to launch some of these
infrastructure projects on a Federal basis, you would just see an
incredible upsurge of support.  And most of this vicious,
including assassination threats and so forth, these attacks on
the President, would simply evaporate and the people that persist
would be shown for the paid agents of the British Empire and
George Soros that they are.

OGDEN:  I think it was clearly said by Helga LaRouche:  We
have a very significant victory to claim, I think both in terms
of the further consolidation of this idea that the United States
should join the New Silk Road, and the fact that these
discussions are now going on at the very highest level between
the United States and China.  But also in terms of this fight for
Glass-Steagall and as Paul said, this is something that LaRouche
PAC has been directly involved in, on the forefront of leading
for year — 2008, 2009?  Lyndon LaRouche’s call at that time was
for a complete bankruptcy reorganization of the economy.  It was
initially the Homeowners and Bank Protection Act and that became
this idea of the Four Laws.

GALLAGHER: August 2007 was the Homeowners and Bank
Protection Act.

OGDEN:  That’s right. So now we’re coming up on 10 years!  I
think that’s widely recognized, the leadership that the LaRouche
movement has played, including on Capitol Hill from the sponsors
of this legislation.  So this decision now to mobilize and to
really enter into a brawl, the fight is on on that front and we
have a responsibility to pour as much as we can, from around the
country, in mobilizing on that front, too.
I think that’s a good conclusion for our webcast here,
today.  Thank you Diane, for joining us from New York, and thank
you very much Paul for joining me here.

GALLAGHER: A pleasure.

OGDEN:  Stay tuned to larouchepac.com and we’ll talk to you
soon.

Lyndon H. LaRouche og Helga Zepp-LaRouche, november, 2013.

Leder fra LaRouche PAC, 18. juni, 2017 – Fremtidige generationer vil se tilbage på disse dage i midten af 2017 som en hovedkorsvej i hele menneskets historie frem til i dag. De grundlæggende kendsgerninger, der stadig er stort set ukendte for de fleste amerikanere i dag, vil være velkendte for dem. Den måde, hvorpå Lyndon og Helga LaRouche i årtier, og på trods af intens forfølgelse, havde udarbejdet et Nyt Paradigme for en global civilisation, hvor mennesket endelig ville blive fuldt ud menneskeligt, og som var knyttet til et udstrakt program for en Verdenslandbro og for udvikling af fusionskraft og en genlancering af udforskning af rummet som et globalt rumprogram.

At dette LaRouche-program for Verdenslandbroen blev officielt vedtaget som kinesisk statslig politik i 2013 og i løbet af fire år fik tilslutning fra flere end 100 nationer, der repræsenterede flertallet af menneskeheden. At, takket være dette program, begyndte håb atter at indfinde sig i Afrika, efter årtiers fortvivlelse. Vejen var åbnet for en afslutning af Det britiske Imperium og det oldgamle imperiesystem, der havde forkrøblet menneskers sind, siden mindst begyndelsen af den optegnede historie.

At det var inden for en sådan sammenhæng, om end de amerikanske vælgere blev holdt uvidende om det, at de afviste Det britiske Imperiums præsidentkandidat, Hillary Clinton, og i stedet valgte den kandidat, der lovede venskab med Rusland og Kina, afslutningen af udenlandske aggressionskrige og genindførelsen af Franklin Roosevelts Glass/Steagall-lov – Donald Trump.

USA bevægede sig mod det Nye Paradigme.

Det britiske Imperium kæmpede indædt for at skaffe sig af med præsident Trump gennem et FBI-kup, eller gennem ethvert andet middel, de kunne udtænke. De fleste amerikanere hældede til at støtte deres valgte præsident og udviste ikke alene støtte, men også entusiasme, når de blev vist tillid. Men, for faktisk at kunne handle på dette, havde de brug for et virkeligt begreb om den globale proces og LaRouche-parrets mission, som var blevet dem nægtet.

Og her står sagerne i øjeblikket. Som en digter har sagt, »det sidste kapitel er endnu ikke skrevet«.

Foto: LaRouche-parret: Lyndon H. LaRouche og Helga Zepp-LaRouche, november, 2013.

Leder fra LaRouche PAC, 15. juni, 2017 – Briterne har gentagne gange myrdet amerikanske præsidenter, efter at de først myrdede vort forfatningssystems fader, Alexander Hamilton. Men man skal helt tilbage til Abraham Lincoln for at finde den slags gentagne trusler mod en præsident, i særdeleshed trusler om mord, som nu fremsættes mod præsident Trump, mens dette læses – under britisk direktiv. En »komiker« cirkulerer et fotografi af sig selv på Internet, hvor hun fremviser en kopi af præsidentens afskårne hoved. Samtidig opføres jævnligt det langtrukne knivmord på præsident Trump foran stort publikum i New Yorks Central Park, stolt sponsoreret af, og med gentagen energisk støtte fra, forræderne i det britisk-elskende New York Times – under absurd forklædning af Shakespeares »Julius Cæsar«. »Skuespilleren«, der angiveligt portrætterer Julius Cæsar i denne blodige farce, er udklædt og udstyret til fuldstændigt at ligne præsident Trump – alt imens hans hustru taler med slavisk accent og ser ud som og klæder sig præcis som præsidentens kone, Melania. Der er selvfølgelig ingen, der tror på New York Times, at dette skulle repræsentere »ytringsfrihed«. Det repræsenterer overlagt ansporing til politisk mord, eller endda ’ret til at dræbe’ (license to kill) – og det endda samtidig med, at et uskyldigt amerikansk kongresmedlem, og endnu en uskyldig mand, befinder sig i kritisk tilstand på et hospital i Washington efter at være blevet skudt i går morges af en gal skytte, der leder efter »Republikanere« at dræbe.

Der kunne fremføres meget mere som dette, som I alle ved.

Det Britiske Imperium, hvis blodtørst står bag alt dette, har netop her til morgen opfordret til Trumps afsættelse ved en rigsretssag i deres flagskib, Londons Financial Times.

Årsagen til parallellen til det samme, morderiske hysteri, der blev pisket op mod Abraham Lincoln, er, at nutidens spørgsmål i realiteten ikke er mindre vigtige nu, end de var dengang. Dengang drejede det sig om spørgsmålet om denne Republiks overlevelse i lyset af dette samme, Britiske Imperium – et spørgsmål, der involverede fremtiden for hele menneskeslægten. Lyndon LaRouche har nu gjort det klart, at en sejr for Jim Comey og Bob Muellers FBI, med deres kupforsøg mod præsident Trump, ville kaste verden ud i atomkrig, der ville ødelægge vor civilisation, og muligvis vor art.

På den anden side, så bevæger fortsættelsen af den forfatningsmæssige institution, som er præsidentskabet under den legitime præsident Donald Trump – og retsforfølgelsen af og domsafsigelsen over de udenlandsk sponsorerede forrædere, der ønsker at ødelægge denne institution – USA ind i det »Nye Paradigme«, som Lyndon og Helga LaRouche har kæmpet for i næsten et halvt århundrede, gennem præsident Trumps åbne og oprigtige forpligtelse til fred og partnerskab med Rusland og Kina. Vi må genindføre Roosevelts Glass/Steagall-lov, som præsident Trump har lovet, som en del af Lyndon LaRouches »Fire Love« fra juni 2014, og som indbefatter statslig bankpraksis, massiv udstedelse af statskredit, udvikling af fusionskraft og et komplet rumprogram i en international samarbejdsindsats.

Valget ligger nu foran denne generation, foran hver enkelt af os, og foran dig, personligt.

Foto: Lincoln Memorial.

Leder fra LaRouche PAC, 14. juni, 2017 – I de seneste par uger har en teater/nyhedskommentator holdt et billede frem af præsident Trumps blodige, afskårne hoved; »Shakespeare in the Park«-teaterkompagniets opsætning af Julius Cæsar i New Yorks Central Park portrætterede Cæsar som Donald Trump, som dernæst blev udsat for en langvarig, brutal og blodig mordscene; og i dag åbnede en 66-årig mand fra Illinois ild mod et baseball-træningshold fra det Republikanske Parti i Alexandria, Virginia, efter en bekræftelse af, at de var Republikanere, og skød fire personer (inklusive det tredjehøjest rangerende medlem af det Republikanske Part i Repræsentanternes Hus), før han blev dræbt af politiet. Skyttens Facebook-side inkluderede: »Trump er en forræder. Trump har ødelagt vores demokrati. Tiden er inde til at ødelægge Trump & Co.«

Sindssyg handling, begået af en galning? Måske, men politiske mord bliver altid fremstillet som »enlige mordere«, og efterforskningerne bliver altid omhyggeligt kontrolleret for at opretholde sådanne dækhistorier – med JFK-mordet som blot det mest berømte, og mest åbenlyse, eksempel. I 2008 udgav EIR en brochure med titlen, »Hvorfor briterne myrder amerikanske præsidenter«,[1] og som rapporterede om briternes rolle og motivering bag mordene på præsidenterne Abraham Lincoln, James Garfield, William McKinley[2] og John F. Kennedy.

Husk, at det aktuelle McCarthy-hysteri, der forsøger at male præsident Trump som en naiv tåbe eller agent for russerne, medskyldig i angivelig underminering af amerikansk demokrati, osv., blev indledt af den britiske MI6-agent Christopher Steeles kompendium af vilde fabrikationer om Trump og russerne. Dette »uærlige og upålidelige dossier« blev dernæst brugt af den nu miskrediterede, tidligere FBI-chef, James Comey, i et selvudnævnt »J. Edgar Hoover-moment«, hvor han viste Trump Steele-dossieret og angiveligt antydede, at det ville blive offentliggjort, hvis Trump ikke bøjede sig mht. at stoppe oprettelsen af venligtsindede relationer mellem USA og Rusland. Dernæst lækkede han næsten sikkert dossieret, eller sørgede for, at det blev lækket, dagen efter.

De korrupte efterretningsfolk fra Obama-administrationens tid – James Clapper, John Brennan og James Comey – havde, selv før, de blev afskediget fra embedet, ført et korstog for at portrættere Rusland (og Kina) som fjender af Amerika; som militære aggressorer, og som en alvorligere trussel mod den vestlige verden, end ISIS! Disse løgne tjente som dækhistorie for, at præsident Obama og hans klon, Hillary Clinton, kunne bringe verden på randen af atomkrig og forsikre de bankerotte, vestlige finansoligarker, at USA aldrig ville gå sammen med Rusland og Kina i byggeriet af den Nye Silkevej og opbygning af en ny, global finansarkitektur. Sådanne revolutionerende skridt ville, til [City of] Londons og Wall Streets rædsel, give infrastruktur og industri til den Tredje Verden, og endda til de vestlige nationer, snarere end gæld og nedskæringer, påtvunget dem af Londons og Wall Streets spekulanter.

Men, oligarkerne havde ikke forudset, at det amerikanske folk havde fået nok af permanent krigsførelse, økonomisk disintegration, narkotika- eller opiatepidemien, der rammer stort set hver eneste familie i nationen, og massemedier, der vedholdende løj om stort set alt. Valget af Trump blev resultatet.

Foreløbig har Trump lovet at gøre mange af de ting, som Lyndon H. LaRouche længe har foreslået, som det fremlægges i LaRouches Fire Love , men han har ikke taget de fundamentale skridt, der er nødvendige for at gennemføre disse løfter. Han har aflagt løfte om at genopbygge den forfaldne, amerikanske infrastruktur, men har ikke handlet på sit løfte om at genindføre Glass-Steagall – det absolut nødvendige, første skridt til at skabe den nødvendige kredit til opfyldelse af sit løfte om infrastruktur og gen-industrialisering. Han har etableret samarbejdsrelationer med Kina, men har ikke fuldt ud tilsluttet sig Bælte & Vej Initiativet for atter at få gang i amerikansk industri omkring opbygning af verdens nationer, inklusive vores egen. Han har krævet en genopretning af amerikansk førerskab inden for rumforskning og -fart, og inden for videnskabelige opdagelser, men, igen, finansieringen af disse projekter kræver, at han omgående lukker den spekulative boble ned og genindfører statskredit i Hamiltons tradition.

Det er, fordi præsident Trump offentligt har forpligtet sig til disse ting, og til at gøre en ende på britisk imperieopsplitning af verden i »Øst vs. Vest«, at skydevåbnene nu trækkes for at fjerne ham fra embedet – eller, som det antydes gennem dagens skudepisode, fjerne ham fra Jordens overflade. Han må handle meget hurtigt for at sætte gang i den økonomiske genrejsning gennem statslig kredit; for at tilslutte sig den Nye Silkevej og for fuldt ud at samarbejde med Rusland og Putin om at knuse terrorist-svøben.

Jo flere amerikanere, der følger med i serien af Oliver Stones fire timelange interviews med præsident Vladimir Putin desto hurtigere vil dæmoniseringen af Putin blive grinet ind i historiebøgerne og gøre den sorte historie med J. Edgar Hoovers beskidte tricks med den »røde skræk« og politiske mord, selskab.

Foto: Justitsministeren og FBI’s direktør på visit. Præsident John F. Kennedy, J. Edgar Hoover og Robert F. Kennedy. Det Hvide Hus, det ovale kontor, 23. februar, 1961.

[1] Se (engelsk): »Why the British Kill American Presidents«

[2] Se (dansk): »Londons mord på McKinley lancerede et århundrede med politiske mord«

Leder fra LaRouche PAC, 13. juni, 2017 – Mandag skar Lyndon LaRouche igennem al snak frem og tilbage om infrastruktur – og hysteriet omkring ’Russia-gate’ – og understregede: Statskredit! Se at få udbetalingerne i gang! Om nødsituationen i New York sagde han: »Der skal omgående udstedes statslig finansiering til byggeri af ny infrastruktur i New York City. Staten (i USA, ’federal government’, -red.) må gå ind og overtage krisen; det er den eneste kilde til en lovmæssig form for kredit til dette problem … Vi har hørt nok tale uden konkrete specifikationer, uden, at der kommer reelle betalinger på bordet. Det skal vedtages – både midlerne, og deres anvendelse – nu.«

Uden for New York City – som udgør en vigtig national krise, og hvis løsning hele nationaløkonomien afhænger af – indløber der dagligt anmodninger om indgriben pga. de forfaldne tilstande inden for transport, vand, elektricitet og alle andre nødvendige, offentlige tjenesteydelser.

I går var senator Bob Casey (Dem.-Pennsylvania) ved Monongahela-floden (nær Pittsburgh) for at opfordre Kongressen og præsident Trump til at finansiere restaureringen af tre gamle sluser, før der sker en fatal fejlfunktion. Disse strukturer daterer sig tilbage til 1917, på en vandvej, der endnu i dag, f.eks., fører 6 million tons kul om året til U.S. Steel koksovnene i Clairton til det, der er tilbage af områdets stålindustri. Restaureringen af sluserne begyndte for 25 år siden og er endnu i dag ikke færdig efter gentagne udskydelser. Senator Casey fremlægger imidlertid ingen overordnet plan for, hvordan de nødvendige arbejder skal finansieres.

Der er ikke muligt, at nogle af de punkter, der ofte tales om – det være sig partnerskaber mellem det offentlige og privatsektoren (PPP’er), lokal- eller delstatsfinansiering, og heller ikke ’frimarkeds-wing-dings’, kan, eller vil, finansiere en genrejsning af nationaløkonomien. Wall Streets krav om 10 + % i afkast, der skal komme fra bompenge, told, afgifter, billetter osv., er fuldstændig umuligt. »Få kendsgerningerne i orden« omkring dette, som LaRouche atter i dag understregede.

Vi må løfte folk op til den rette fremgangsmåde. Dette begynder med at genindføre Glass-Steagall til beskyttelse af gavnlig, kommerciel bankvirksomhed, og fryse spekulativ finansvirksomhed ud; etablér dernæst en statslig, national kreditinstitution og udsted statslig og privat kredit til storstilede, prioriterede projekter og aktiviteter, og lancér en videnskabsmotor til fremme af rumforskning og forskning i fusionskraft.

I New York City responderer ’folk på gaden’ med stor forbløffelse og lettelse til ideen, ’Vi kan gøre dette her!’ Til gengæld stikker fjenderne af denne fremgangsmåde så meget desto mere grelt ud.

I Senatet i dag var finansminister Steven Mnuchin ’en rotte i hjørnet’ mht. Glass-Steagall. Under en høring om statsbudgettet responderede han til spørgsmål fra senator Bernie Sanders (Uafh.-Vermont) ved at sige, at der er tre forskellige »Lovforslag til det 21. Århundredes Glass-Steagall«, og han er modstander af sen. Elizabeths Warrens lovforslag om genindførelse af Glass-Steagall, og også forslaget fra Republikanernes partiprogram. Mnuchin sagde, at der ikke bør være nogen tvungen adskillelse mellem kommerciel bankvirksomhed og investeringsbankvirksomhed: »Vi mener, det ville skade økonomien, at det ville ødelægge likviditeten på markedet.« Med andre ord, Mnuchin er en dræber. Han støtter med fuldt overlæg finansielle betingelser, der fører til tab af liv og tab af fremtid for nationen.

I direkte opposition så vi lidt af »ånden fra Silkevejen« i Iowa i går. Under et Iowa-Kina-symposium i Des Moines blev et forståelsesmemo underskrevet mellem repræsentanter for kinesiske og amerikanske tænketanke om at fortsætte med at udveksle ideer for sammen at fremme deres respektive økonomier. Den kinesiske generalkonsul fra Chicago rapporterede om kinesisk involvering i varefremstilling, handel og landbrugsanliggender i de ni midtvestlige delstater, som han relaterer til. Trump-administrationen annoncerede færdiggørelsen af Kina-USA-handelstraktaten, under hvilken amerikanske eksport af oksekød til Kina nu kan begynde. Xinhua, CGTN og andre kinesiske medier spørger, ’Er Iowa-Kina modellen for den nye amerikansk-kinesiske relation?’

Den 21. juni vil Trump tale i Cedar Rapids, Iowa, ved et møde i anledning af Terry Branstads, den tidligere guvernør for Iowa, udsendelse til Kina som den nye amerikanske ambassadør til Kina. Branstad er mangeårig ven til præsident Xi Jinping.

Vi opfordrer folk til at hæve sig op over, og besejre, Trumpgate/Russiagate-operationen og den onde, britiske imperieflok, der står bag den. Som Vladimir Putin sagde herom, i første afsnit af hans interview til Oliver Stone i går aftes: Den anti-russiske hype i USA er tåbelig. Det kan måske give dem en fordel på kort sigt, men problemet med dem er, at de nægter at se 25, 50 år ud i fremtiden og konsekvenserne af deres handlinger. Vi må have samarbejde.

Foto: Lyndon LaRouche, her i diskussion med Diane Sare og Michael Steger fra LaRouche PAC Policy Committee. 

https://soundcloud.com/si_dk/kinas-nye-silkevej-larouches-nye-okonomiske-verdensorden-vil-vi-fa-larouchenomics

v/ formand Tom Gillesberg.

Video og lydfil.

Velkommen til dette fortsatte drama, som vi forhåbentlig vil se tilbage på om et par år og sige:

»Det var dengang, verden var på kanten af at udrydde og udradere sig selv; men lige pludselig, så lyttede menneskeheden til de fantastiske mennesker, de ikke ville lytte til før; så lyttede man til de vise ord fra Lyndon LaRouche og Helga Zepp-LaRouche, Schiller Instituttet og Tom Gillesberg og Jacques Cheminade. Det her er folk, som igennem årtier havde kæmpet for at få vendt udviklingen og få verden sat på ret kurs. Og vi troede aldrig, det ville ske. Og lige pludselig, så begyndte man at lytte; og ikke nok med, at man lyttede til det her, man begyndte faktisk at gøre det.

Det var først kineserne, der for alvor så lyset og begyndte at gøre noget ved det. Men da først Kina satte sig i spidsen for dette udviklingstog, for den Nye Silkevej, så gik der ikke lang tid, så kom resten af menneskeheden med om bord, og så skete der noget. Og selv i de tidligere håbløse områder, som f.eks. New York City, hvor det var et mareridt, hvor man knap nok kunne bevæge sig fra A til B, fordi der var så mange folk, der skulle transporteres, og hele infrastrukturen var 100 år gammel; jamen, så i løbet af bare ganske få år med kinesisk hjælp, så lykkedes det faktisk at bygge en helt ny, fantastisk infrastruktur.

Og Donald Trump, som man forsøgte at gøre grin med, som man forsøgte at få afsat, som man forsøgte at få fjernet med alle midler; jamen, det viste sig, at han faktisk indgik et strategisk partnerskab med Kina, med Rusland og blev til en af USA’s rigtig store præsidenter.«

Og det er det, vi må håbe er fortællingen om ganske kort, for det er det potentiale, der er i tiden. Igen, man forsøger ved hjælp af ’fake news’, dvs., de veletablerede mediekanaler i den vestlige verden, hele tiden at have en pseudodagsorden; hele tiden at få folk fikseret på det ting, der ikke er de store spørgsmål, mens de virkelige, revolutionerende, afgørende begivenheder, der sker i verden rundt omkring, jamen, dem forsøger man ikke at snakke om.

Altså, hvor mange har læst i danske medier, en udførlig rapport fra Bælte & Vej Forummet, 14.-15. maj, (i Beijing); denne verdenshistoriske begivenhed, hvor 130 nationer var til stede, og hvor Bælte & Vej Initiativet så at sige gik ind i næste fase, og hvor sågar USA, som under Obama havde gjort alt for at sabotere dette udviklingsmomentum, faktisk gik med om bord; at man havde Pottinger som Trumps repræsentant; at man nu har etableret en samarbejdsgruppe, USA’s Bælte & Vej Samarbejdsgruppe, som skal få integreret USA i Bælte & Vej politikken.

Tilmed i Danmark; Karen Ellemann blev sendt som Lars Løkkes personlige repræsentant: Hvor mange danskere tror I ved det? At Danmark var med på Bælte & Vej Forummet? 1 procent; 1 promille? 5 Mennesker ud af fem millioner? Det er meget få, for der har ikke været en lyd om det. Intet. Og det er ligesom måden, man forsøger at behandle det her på; man forsøger ligesom fanatisk at sige, i den gamle optik, i den gamle verden, at der ikke er sket noget; verden er, som den altid har været. …

Leder fra LaRouche PAC, 12. juni, 2017 – I seks måneder har amerikanske vælgere ventet på, at præsident Donald Trump og Demokraterne skulle handle: Nu skal statskredit udstedes til fornyelse af nationens infrastruktur på et højere niveau. Der har været løfter, men ingen kredit, og ingen plan for, hvordan den skal anvendes.

Meget af Amerikas økonomiske infrastruktur fra begyndelsen af det 20. århundrede er ikke blot i færd med stille og roligt at »smuldre«; den er livstruende. Det farligste tilfælde er sammenbrudskrisen i transport, der rammer flere end 20 million mennesker i New Yorks storbyområde. »Helvedessommeren«, der er indledt i New Yorks transportårer, truer i realiteten hele den amerikanske nationaløkonomi.

EIR’s stiftende redaktør, Lyndon LaRouche, har bebudet pause i al »snakken« om infrastruktur:

»Staten må nu omgående udstede finansiering til bygning af ny infrastruktur i New York City«, sagde LaRouche. »Regeringen må gå ind og overtage denne krise; staten er den eneste kilde til en lovmæssig form for kredit for dette problem. Dette er en betydelig national krise, og USA’s nationaløkonomi er afhængig af, at den løses. Vi har haft nok snak uden konkrete detaljer, uden opfølgning af direkte handling.

Det skal på bordet – både finansieringen og en plan for dens anvendelse – nu.«

I mellemtiden har Demokraterne taget regeringens tid med »Russia-gate«, sammensværgelsen om at drive præsidenten ud af embedet for at ville have samarbejdsrelationer med Rusland. Den fyrede FBI-mand James Comeys vidneforklaring har gjort det meget klart, hvad dette gik ud på: et indstuderet forsøg fra efterretningssamfundets side på at opstille en fælde for præsidenten, og afsætte ham; med en politisk veterans ord, en »ynkelig, død sild« for en vildt distraheret Kongres.

Drop »Russia-gate«. Det Hvide Hus og Kongressen må komme i omdrejninger for at forhindre økonomien i at kollapse, og forhindre, at amerikanerne yderligere forarmes og dør. Genindfør Glass/Steagall-loven, så bankerne udlåner penge. Opret en statslig kreditinstitution til byggeri af det, der skal bygges; det være sig en nationalbank i Hamiltons tradition, til infrastruktur og vareproduktion; et nyt ’Reconstruction Finance Corporation, RFC’ – Finansieringsselskab til Genopbygning – baseret på Franklin Roosevelts oprindelige RFC; eller et bevillingskontor for statslig finansiering af projekter. Inviter til samarbejde med verdensmestrene i nye infrastrukturplatforme, Kinas »Bælte & Vej Initiativ«.

Uden at gennemføre disse skridt, sagde LaRouche, »er alle drømme om at genopbygge nationen døde«.

Foto: NTSB (National Styrelse for Transportsikkerhed) undersøger en bil, der var involveret i dødelig Metro North togulykke ved Valhalla, New York, 4. februar, 2015.

Leder fra LaRouche PAC, 11. juni, 2017 – Da Franklin Roosevelt døde før krigens slutning, var Lyndon LaRouche fortvivlet over, at en stor mand var gået bort og advarede om, at en meget lille mand tog over.

Indser amerikanere, med et tilbageblik på 1945 fra nutidens perspektiv, at USA vandt krigen baseret på FDR’s besejring af de britiske bankierer på Wall Street gennem at genindføre det Amerikanske System for kredit til udvikling, ikke spekulation, gennem Glass/Steagall-loven? Indser de, at »demokratiets arsenal«, der besejrede fascismen, udelukkende var muligt, fordi FDR havde skabt historiens største infrastruktur-boom på ganske få år og herved gav USA en overvældende førerposition inden for produktion og logistik? Indser de, at Roosevelts samarbejde med Kina og Rusland (det daværende USSR) var uundværligt for at redde verden fra fascisme? Eller tror de på myten om, at krigen blev vundet gennem Trumans forbrænding af japanske civile, og at den Kolde Krig var nødvendig for at redde verden fra »Gudløs kommunisme«?

Disse spørgsmål er af afgørende betydning for nutiden. Efter 16 års nedskæringspolitik, permanent kolonialistisk krigsførelse (»regimeskifte«) og kulturel degeneration under Bush, Cheney og Obama, truedes amerikanerne af død gennem pessimisme og fortvivlelse, gennem økonomisk forfald og deres menneskelige værdigheds kulturelle nedgørelse.

Men verden har nu forandret sig. Den Nye Silkevej har, siden den blev annonceret af Xi Jinping i 2013, på ganske få år, ligesom FDR gjorde det med USA, sat hele verden på en kurs for menneskelig produktivitet i hele verden og demonstreret, at fattigdom virkelig kan fjernes, over hele planeten, sådan, som kineserne næsten har gjort det med deres egen nation. Kina og Rusland forener Eurasiens nationer bag dette store foretagende og rækker hånden frem til hele Asien, Afrika og de amerikanske kontinenter om at tilslutte sig.

Der er nu i USA en præsident, der afviser hele denne imperieopsplitning af verden; der afviser regimeskifte og promoverer venskab og samarbejde med Rusland og Kina, både for at besejre terrorisme og for at samarbejde om Bælte & Vej Initiativet med det formål at imødekomme menneskehedens fælles mål.

Imperiet har svaret tilbage med gengældelse. Med anvendelse af alle til rådighed stående resurser – krigsliderlige neokonservative fra både det Republikanske og Demokratiske parti, de rådne horer fra mainsteam-medierne og de britiske operatører i Bush- og Obama-efterretningssamfundene – har man forsøgt at dæmonisere Putin, påstå, at Rusland stjal valget og at Trump var et redskab for Moskva. Trump skulle ødelægges for enhver pris – en »farvet revolution« mod vor egen nation. Anførerne af denne indsats var de velkendte løgnere og forrædere, der var ledere af Obamas efterretningstjenester: John Brennan, James Clapper og James Comey.

Som Michael Goodwin fra New York Post påpegede i lørdags: »J. Edgar Hoover beholdt sit job, fordi fem præsidenter var bange for at fyre ham. Hans forsikring var det smuds, han i hemmelighed indsamlede om dem. Comey er en alen af samme stykke, men Trump var ikke bange for at fyre ham.«

Nu slår sandheden igennem i det amerikanske folk. Comeys løgne står afsløret. Trump nægter at bøje sig for krigsmagernes løgne om Rusland og/eller Kina.

Det spørgsmål står tilbage: Vil det amerikanske folk genoplive det standpunkt, som var vore Grundlæggende Fædres, Franklin Roosevelts og John F. Kennedys, ved at se tilbage på nutiden ud fra et standpunkt om fremtiden? Vil New Yorkere vedtage en vision for byen med højhastigheds-jernbaneforbindelser, med svævetog (maglev) til erstatning for den svedfyldte, støjende undergrundsbane, der nu er ved at bryde sammen? Vover amerikanerne at tro på, at nationen kan transformeres på nogle ganske få år, som FDR gjorde; som kineserne har gjort i dag?

Hen over de næste par uger vil LaRouche PAC’s Manhattan-projekt sponsorere en række begivenheder, der leverer den kreative ammunition, der er nødvendig for at besvare dette spørgsmål bekræftende. Vores bulletin over kommende begivenheder omfatter invitationen til arrangementet i Carnegie Hall den 29. juni til ære for Sylvia Olden Lee,[1] som efterfølges af et seminar om det klassiske toneleje og stemmeplacering. Der følger snarest yderligere begivenheder med Schiller Instituttet og vore kinesiske venner og andre fra hele verden, som fortsat vil angive retningen for de revolutionære forandringer, der fejer hen over nationen og verden.

Foto: Præsident Donald Trump annoncerer sit initiativ for infrastruktur. 7. juni, 2017.

[1] Se: In Praise of Sylvia Olden Lee,  og biografi.

9. juni, 2017 – Kongresmedlem Marcy Kaptur talte igen i dag for en genindførelse af Glass-Steagall, og imod »Choice«-bankreguleringsloven, hvor hun sagde:

»Hr. formand, jeg taler i dag for at modsætte mig Financial CHOICE Act, der overgiver det amerikanske folk, såvel som også tryghed og stabilitet, til fordel for Wall Street.

Seks storbanker kontrollerer nu to tredjedele af finanssektoren i vort land og høstede rekordstore profitter på mere end $170 mia. i 2016. Det er for meget magt på for få hænder …

I denne uge foreslog kongresmedlem Jones og jeg at suspendere det aktuelle lovforslag og erstatte det med vores tværpolitiske forslag, [Tilbagevenden til] Klog og Forsigtig Bankpraksis, der genindfører beskyttelse gennem Glass/Steagall-loven ved at adskille ’klog og forsigtig’ bankpraksis fra risikabel Wall Street-bankpraksis, der udtømte vores økonomi i 2008.

Rules Committee nægtede at give vores lovforslag mulighed for at komme til afstemning. Vi forbliver dog beslutsomme. Glass/Steagall-loven var en del af præsident Trumps, såvel som Bernie Sanders, valgkampagne, og i 2016 omfattede både Republikanernes og Demokraternes valgprogram politikken for en genindførelse af Glass/Steagall-lovens beskyttelse.

Amerikanere bør vide, at der er en voksende, tværpolitik konsensus for at beskytte de fremskridt, vi har gjort, tøjle Wall Street og holde ulvene borte fra jeres pengepunge.«

Kongresmedlem Tulsi Gabbard (Dem.-Hawai) talte også i salen for at erstatte CHOICE Act med Glass/Steagall-loven. Kaptur og kongresmedlem Walter Jones (Rep.-NC) planlægger, med 50 medsponsorer, mere handling for at intensivere Glass/Steagall-debatten.

Under pres omkring spørgsmålet om Glass-Steagall sammenlignede modstander af Glass-Steagall, kongresmedlem Jeb Hensarling (Rep.-TX) fejlagtigt sin CHOICE Act med en »Glass/Steagall-lov for det 21. Århundrede« i bemærkninger, rapporteret af The Hill.

En respekteret ekspert inden for en genindførelse af Glass/Steagall, forfatter og tidligere investeringsbankier, Nomi Prins, offentliggjorde i dag et stærkt og langt argument for Glass/Steagall, der var stilet til præsident Donald Trump. Artiklen findes på flere sites, inklusive:

https://www.opednews.com/articles/3/Nomi-Prins-In-Washington-by-Tom-Engelhardt-Banks_Glass-Steagall_Government_Washington-Greed-170608-188.html

Se også: Video: Marcy Kapturs fremlæggelse for Rules Committee, for at erstatte CHOICE Act med forslag for Glass/Steagall: http://schillerinstitut.dk/si/?p=19987

Matthew Ogden: Jeg vil kort gennemgå, hvad der sker i verden og de udviklinger, der har været i ugens løb. Der foregår virkelig meget i verden; se bare på det tempo, udviklinger finder sted i: fra Kinas Bælte & Vej Forum i midten af maj til Skt. Petersborg Internationale Økonomiske Forum, der fandt sted i sidste uge i Skt. Petersborg, Rusland. Vi er nu midt Shanghai Samarbejdsorganisationens (SCO) møde, der finder sted i Astana, Kasakhstan. Både Xi Jinping, Vladimir Putin og Narendra Modi er til stede ved dette SCO-møde, der finder sted netop nu. Der finder bilaterale møder sted på sidelinjen af dette meget vigtige topmøde, mellem præsident Xi og Modi, Xi og præsident Putin, og Xi og præsident Nazarbajev fra Kasakhstan.

Det, vi er vidne til i hele denne række af verdenshistoriske topmøder, er i realiteten en konsolidering af det, som Helga Zepp-LaRouche, under sin deltagelse i Bælte & Vej Forum i Beijing, kaldte »dannelsen af en Ny Økonomisk Verdensorden«. Hun sagde:

»Med Bælte & Vej Forum etablerede vi dannelsen af en Ny Økonomisk Verdensorden. Det var et i sandhed historisk øjeblik; en ny æra for civilisationen. Dette er et faseskifte for menneskeheden.«

Det, vi ser, er en reel konsolidering af dette faseskifte for menneskeheden.

Præsident Xi Jinpings artikel, som han offentliggjorde aftenen før SCO-forummet i Astana, gav genlyd af denne karakteristik. Han erklærede, at den Nye Silkevej var blevet en succes i løbet af de fire år, der var gået, siden han oprindeligt annoncerede dette initiativ på præcis samme sted – Astana, Kasakhstan – i 2013. Han sagde, initiativet i løbet af disse fire år med held var gået fra idé til handling; og at dette initiativ nu fungerer som et »globalt offentligt gode«. Jeg mener, at denne karakteristik understreger det faktum, at denne nye, internationale orden ikke alene omfatter de økonomiske, diplomatiske og sikkerhedsmæssige relationer, der nu bliver konsolideret; men også, grundlæggende set, et fælles forpligtende engagement til fundamentalt fremskridt for den menneskelige art. Det, som Xi Jinping kalder for »menneskehedens fælles skæbne«.

Hvis vi ser på de spændende budskaber, der netop er kommet fra det kinesiske rumprogram, mener jeg, dette er en absolut korrekt karakteristik. Det bekræftes nu, at Kina, med deres Chang’e-mission, følger planen for at sende en mission til Månen for at returnere med prøver, få prøver af månejord og vende hjem til Jorden med dem; dette vil ske i november i år. Chang’e IV-missionen til Månens bagside, som man har store forventninger til, vil finde sted til næste år.

Lad os se på, hvad der finder sted her i USA. I denne uge så vi, at der virkelig blev lagt ved på bålet i kampen for Glass-Steagall. Marcy Kaptur og Walter Jones er begge i offensiven i denne uge i forbindelse med den såkaldte »Financial Choice Act«. De fremlagde begge en fremragende begrundelse for Rules Committee tidligere på ugen, for deres lovtillæg til Financial Choice Act, nemlig Prudent Banking Law (loven om ’klog of forsigtig’ bankpraksis), som ville genindføre Glass-Steagall. Selv om dette desværre blev nedstemt i Rules Committee (dvs. komiteen vil ikke lade dette alternative lovforslag komme til afstemning i salen, -red.), så har begge fået mulighed for at tale i Repræsentanternes Hus’ sal imod Henserling-lovforslaget. Walter Jones var den eneste Republikaner, der stemte imod Financial Choice Act og til støtte for Glass-Steagall, sammen med Tulsi Gabbard, der også er medsponsor af Glass/Steagall-loven.

Jeg vil afspille først Marcy Kapturs tale, efterfulgt af Tulsi Gabbards tale:

Her følger videoklippene og resten af webcastet på engelsk:     

MARCY KAPTUR:  Mr. Speaker, I rise today to oppose the
Financial Choice Act, which abandons the American people, as well
as safety and soundness in favor of Wall Street. Six mega-banks
now control two-thirds of the financial sector in our country,
and reap record profits of over $170 billion in 2016.  That’s too
much power in too few hands.  Current law has made progress in
protecting consumers from predatory practices.  Repeal of these
consumer protections is not what the American want.  This week,
Congressman Jones and I proposed to table the current legislation
and replace it with our bipartisan bill, the Prudent Banking Act;
which reinstates Glass-Steagall protections by separating prudent
banking from risky Wall Street speculation that tanked our
economy in 2008.  The Rules Committee refused to allow our bill a
vote; nevertheless, we remain resolute.  Glass-Steagall is
something President Trump ran on, as did Bernie Sanders.  In
2016, both the Republican and Democratic platforms enshrined
policies to restore Glass-Steagall protections.  Americans should
know there is a growing bipartisan consensus fighting to protect
the progress we have made, rein in Wall Street, and keep the
wolves at bay and out of your pocketbook.  I will be voting “no”
on this bill and urge my colleagues to do the same.  I yield back
my remaining time.

TULSI GABBARD:  Thank you, Mr. Speaker.  Rolling back
financial regulations that are in place to protect the American
people will put them and our country’s economic security at risk.
However, the Financial Choice Act that is being considered by
Congress today does just that.  It erodes protections against
dishonest, big bank practices that rob people of their
hard-earned salaries.  The bill repeals the Volcker Rule, it
dismantles the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, strips
regulations in place to protect the American people’s savings,
and actually lets the big banks maintain even less capital that
they need to absorb catastrophic losses; making it so that
they’re relying once again on the American taxpayer to bail them
out.  We don’t need to remind the families who have suffered so
much about the pain caused by the Great Recession.  In my own
home state of Hawaii, from 2008 to 2010, our unemployment rate
more than doubled; and 11 million people in America lost their
homes.  The big banks of 2008 are even bigger and more powerful
today.  I urge my colleagues to reject this dangerous bill and
instead pass HR790, the Return to Prudent Banking Act, which
would reinstate a 21st Century Glass-Steagall Act.  I yield back.

OGDEN:  So, along with Glass-Steagall, the rest of the
debate around what constitutes the core of Mr. Lyndon LaRouche’s
Four Economic Laws, is also beginning to open up.  While you have
President Trump touring the country as part of his so-called
“National Infrastructure Week”, this has really been put on the
table in a very real way.  The credit for this infrastructure.
How do you increase the productivity of the American workforce?
How do you increase the productivity of the American territory,
and how do you apply the American System — the Hamiltonian
system — to make this happen?
Just to give you flavor of what Mr. Trump has been saying on
the subject over the past week — and we will get into this a lot
more — I’m going to play for you a clip of his speech that he
gave in Cincinnati.  I think you’ll find the setting very
appropriate; right against the backdrop of the Ohio River, with
barge traffic going back and forth behind him as he speaks.  So,
here’s President Trump:

DONALD TRUMP:  [as heard] Thank you all very much.  It is
great to be back in Ohio.  We love Ohio.  You remember Ohio, oh
boy.  It was supposed to be close; it wasn’t close.  So wonderful
to speak on the shores of the very magnificent Ohio River.  We’re
here today to talk about rebuilding our nation’s infrastructure.
Isn’t it about time?  Spending money all over the world, except
here.  We don’t spend our money here, we spend it all over.  And
we’ll do it using American labor, American energy, American iron,
aluminum, and steel.
The American people deserve the best infrastructure anywhere
in the world.  We are a nation that created the Panama Canal, the
Transcontinental Railroad, and if you think about this, the great
highway system — the Interstate highway system.  We don’t do
that anymore, we really don’t.  We don’t even fix the old
highways anymore.  We’ll take even fixing them, but we’re going
to get them going again like they’ve never been before.  These
projects not only open new lanes of commerce, but inspired the
immigration and the dreams of millions and millions of people.
We crafted monuments to the American spirit; it’s time to
recapture our legacy as a nation of builders and to create new
lanes of travel, commerce, and discovery.  We’re going to see all
the way into the future; and the future’s going to be beautiful.
And the future is going to be bright.
In my campaign for President, I travelled all across the
nation.  I saw the crumbling infrastructure.  I met with
communities that were desperate for new roads and new bridges.
The bridges were so dangerous, they couldn’t use them; they were
worried they would fall down.  You’ve seen that happen.  I heard
the pleas from the voters who wanted to know why we could rebuild
foreign countries?  My big thing.  We build in foreign countries,
we spend trillions and trillions of dollars outside of our
nation; but we can’t build a road, a highway, a tunnel, a bridge
in our own nation.  We watch everything falling into disrepair.
It’s time to rebuild {our} country, to bring back {our} jobs, to
restore {our} dreams.  And yes, it’s time — finally — to put
American first; and that’s what I’ve been doing, if you haven’t
noticed.
We’re going to restore America’s industrial might; creating
the jobs and tax base to put new infrastructure all over our
country.  That’s what’s happening.  I’m calling on all Democrats
and Republicans to join together — if that’s possible — in the
great rebuilding of America.  Countless American industries,
businesses, and jobs depend on rivers, runways, roads, and rails
that are in dire and even desperate condition.  Millions of
American families rely on their water and pipes and pumps that
are on the verge of total failure and collapse.
We are pleased to be joined today by representatives from
many, many industries that depend on a truly critical component
of our nation’s infrastructure.  These citizens know firsthand
that the rivers, like the beautiful Ohio River, carry the
lifeblood of our heartland.  Roughly 60% of United States grain
exports travel down these waterways to the Gulf.  More than half
of all the American steel is produced within 250 miles of where
we’re standing right now, and its production depends on the
inland waterway system.  Up to 25% of the nation’s energy cargo
relies on these channels, and the refineries along their shores.
But these critical guarders of commerce depend on a dilapidated
system of locks and dams that is more than half a century old.
And their condition, as you know better than anybody, is in very
bad shape.  It continues to decay.
Capital improvements of this system which is so important,
have been massively underfunded.  There is an $8.7 billion
maintenance backlog that is only getting bigger and getting
worse.  Last December, up the Ohio River near Pittsburgh, one
lock built more than 50 years ago had to be shut down for five
days due to hydraulic failure.  You know what that means.  Five
days means everything comes to a halt.  We simply cannot tolerate
a five-day shutdown on a major thoroughfare for American coal,
American oil, and American steel which is going to get more and
bigger.  America must have the best, fastest, and most reliable
infrastructure anywhere in the world.  We cannot accept these
conditions any longer.
A few years ago, a gate broke from its hinges at the
Markland Locks on the Ohio River in Kentucky.  It took nearly
five months to repair.  Any of you know about that?  Wasn’t a
pretty picture, was it?  I don’t think so.  In 2011, a massive
section of canal wall collapsed near Chicago, delaying
everything; and it seemed like forever.
America built the Golden Gate Bridge in just four years, and
the Hoover Dam in five years.  Think of that.  It shouldn’t take
ten years to get approvals for a very small little piece of
infrastructure; and it won’t.  Because under my administration,
it’s not going to happen like that anymore.
So, I want to thank all of the great workers for being here
today.  I want to thank all of the great business leaders; you
have some business leaders who are legendary people in the
audience.  Running massive, massive companies.  And being slowed
down, but now they’ll be able to speed it up.
Not only are we going to repair much of the depleted
infrastructure, but we’re going to create brand new projects that
excite and inspire.  Because that is what a great country does;
that is what a great country has to do.  America wants to build.
Across the nation, our amazing construction workers, steel
workers, iron workers, fitters, electricians, and so many others
are just waiting to get back to work.  With the talent and skill
they represent — which believe me, I grew up in the building
business.  I know the talent and the skill and the courage and
everything else that they have.  There is no limit to what we can
achieve.  All it takes is a bold and daring vision and the will
to make it happen.
Nearly two centuries ago, one American governor had just
such a vision and a will.  His name was Governor DeWitt Clinton.
As the governor of New York State, he dreamed of a canal
stretching nearly 400 miles to connect the Atlantic Ocean in the
east with the Great Lakes in the west.  He predicted that its
construction would place New York City at the very center of
worldwide commerce.  He took the idea to Washington, but
President Thomas Jefferson — great President — didn’t agree
with him; and he dismissed that concept as total madness.  I’d
like to thank all of the people that helped so much in that
incredible event, and I think that Jefferson simply understood
who he was and who he was dealing with.  If you want a New Yorker
to do something, just tell them — like our great past governor
— that it’s impossible to do.  The governor didn’t give up, and
New York State achieved what they thought was the impossible.
When the Erie Canal opened in 1825, he was on the first boat.  He
personally deposited a bucket of water from the Great Lakes into
the New York Harbor.  The new canal exceeded even the governor’s
bold vision.  It dramatically reduced the time and cost to
transport goods from the heartland.  As a result, new settlers
rushed into the Midwest, including to right smack here.  Probably
some of you indirectly, right?  Definitely some of you.
Just as the daring dreams of our ancestors opened new paths
across our land, today we will build the dreams that open new
paths to a better tomorrow.  We, too, will see jobs and wealth
flood into the heartland, and see new products and new produce
made and grown right here in the U.S.A.  You don’t hear that much
anymore.  We will buy American, and we will hire American.  We
will not — so importantly — be content to let our nation become
a museum of former glories.  We will construct incredible new
monuments to American grit that inspire wonder for generations
and generations to come.  We will build because our people want
to build, and because we need them to build.  We will build
because our prosperity demands it.  And above all, we will build
because that is how we make America great again.
Thank you.  God bless you.  Go out there and work.  You’re
going to see some amazing things happen over the next long period
of time.  Thank you, everyone.  It’s a great honor to be with
you.  Thank you.

OGDEN:  So, to address some of what President Trump covered
in that frankly inspiring speech, I want to hand it over to
Jason.  I know we have some other things to cover, but we’ll get
to those later in the show.  I think this is a good point to let
Jason tell us how we’re going to get to work.

JASON ROSS:  OK, this article that Matt referred to earlier,
that I wrote about New York City’s infrastructure — New York’s a
case-study, but it really says something about the nation as a
whole, namely, that if the biggest, greatest city in the United
States is an infrastructure disaster, what does that say about
our economic thinking, about the way we think about
infrastructure?  How did we let ourselves get into a situation
that’s this bad?
First, from a national perspective, just some of the
numbers, briefly.  The American Society of Civil Engineers every
few years does a report card on American infrastructure.  We got
a D+.  Now, they say that there’s $4.5 trillion of infrastructure
that’s needed and of that, only about half of it actually is
funded.  That over the next decade, there is a little over $2
trillion in infrastructure needs that currently are not provided
for, that won’t happen, that aren’t scheduled to take place:
Things like the locks and dams on our inland waterway system that
President Trump mentioned, which are in terrible shape!  Where
the failure — take one example — the failure of the Soo locks
on the Great Lakes, if that were to go, for the shipping season
during the warmer months, the estimates from the Department of
Homeland Security are that {11 million jobs} would be lost by the
failure of that one piece of infrastructure because it’s so
critical to so much of manufacturing:  Of bringing ore from one
place to another, bringing products from one place to another.
Without it, there’s no alternative way of moving these goods.
You’re not going to ship it by truck.  It won’t happen.  It’s
just going to dramatically collapse our productive abilities.
Now, these estimates are a little low.  The head of China
Investment Corp.  Ding Xuedong estimated U.S. infrastructure
needs at $8 trillion!  What  this really all comes down to,
though is what we consider our needs to be.  Do we think of what
we need to do in the future, in terms of repairing what we’ve
already got, which we certainly should repair locks and dams that
are threatening failure.  But is that what our needs are?
It isn’t.  You’ve got to say what is going to make us proud
a century from now.  What is going to be the groundwork that 100
years from now, we will say, “Oh, this was the basis for the
prosperity that we had over this century; this is what made it
possible.”  And if you look at the past, at things like the canal
that President Trump mentioned, if you look at what Eisenhower
did 51 years ago in setting up the Highway Trust Fund and the
ability to go out and build the Interstate Highway System, which
was a pretty phenomenal thing in its time: 40,000 miles of
expressway were built in a decade and a half.  That’s pretty
fast.  It was a large project.  Every year, 15,000 families were
relocated, 40,000 miles built altogether, at a cost in today’s
terms of about $500 billion —  a big project.  A big project.
Now, for what we need to do today, to make the groundwork
for what we’re going to need over the next century, we’ve got to
think about leapfrogging.  What’s the next level of technology?
Improving Amtrak trains?–ugh.  Instead, think about how are we
going to have a high-speed rail network?  Where will these
high-speed rail stations be?  There’s just no way, for example,
on the route that goes from New York to Boston, it can’t be
upgraded — forget it!  It won’t happen; we’re not going to build
a maglev line that runs along the current Northeast Corridor from
New York to Boston.  Not going to happen.  Too crooked, too
curved, goes through too many downtowns and narrow types of
passageways — not going to happen.  We’re going to build an
entirely new rail network in the United States, new high-speed
rail network.
We should build maglev rail, magnetic levitation is the
leapfrog.  That’s the next level of technology.  It’s more
efficient, it’s safer, it’s quieter, less vibration, less
disruption to people nearby.  Fast, safe, efficient — this is
what would be the next generation of technology, that would be a
basis for a higher potential of our country as a whole.
Think about the history of the United States; think about
the history of any country.  What makes it possible to achieve a
certain level of wealth of economic activity, of development?
Well, there’s a lot of aspects to it, but the primary one that
makes everything else possible, is your infrastructure platform.
Do you have a network of roads?  Do you have availability of
power?  How about water?  Think about where cities are located in
the country, or in other countries — where do cities locate
themselves?  They don’t wind up in the middle of the desert or on
the top of a mountain peak or someplace like that.  It’s based on
the, you might say “natural,” infrastructure.  Is it near a
river?  Why is New York where it is?  The Hudson River isn’t just
an inconvenience to traffic because you have to build bridges and
tunnels above it or below it.  It’s the Hudson River!  This is a
major aspect of shipping that goes into the country.  That’s why
New York is where it is.
Other cities, they are where they are due in large part to
rivers for our older cities; and then when you think about what
the potential is in building rail networks and building road
networks, you create a synthetic environment of infrastructure,
that says, OK, this is a place where we should build a new city;
this is a place where it makes sense to have production.  We can
get materials easily, we can work on them, we can ship them out;
we’ve got water, we’ve got power, we’ve got transportation, that
increases the potential of every bit of land that is developed in
that way.
So when you string electric lines out, as Roosevelt did with
the Rural Electrification Act, with the help from the Federal
government for rural residents to get electricity to their towns,
to their farms, this dramatically increased their productivity.
The building of the Transcontinental Railroad; it didn’t just
mean it as cheaper to ship some thing you ordered from a
manufacturer in New York to San Francisco.  Yes, it was cheaper
and quicker than going by boat, all the way around; but what did
it make possible in the entire rest of the country?  You build a
rail line, all the places along it are now increased in their
potential, increased in their value.
So what we need to do, is take advantage of the incredible
renaissance in infrastructure that’s occurring all around the
world — it’s led by China.  And I’ve got to say, the incredible
success that China’s having with its own domestic infrastructure,
with the building of 22,000 km of high-speed rail over the past
decade.  And let’s think about this:  China is a country, where a
decade ago there was zero high-speed rail in China.  What you see
here [{{Figure 1}}] is a map of a future 8 by 8 grid of
high-speed rail planned by China.  It’s double the length of
current high-speed rail, 45,000 km.  They’re going to have that
in place in 2035.
Where do these lines go?  Does it go to currently existing
cities?  Yes.  It would be silly not to link up currently
existing cities.  Where are the stations? Are they in the
downtowns?  Not necessarily.  Maybe it’s difficult to get there;
there’s already a lot of buildings there.  So new areas are
opening up for development in China, as a result of these
high-speed rail lines.  They’re tremendously successful.  Most of
the trips made along this network, are new trips, ones that would
not have been made if the network did not exist.  So it’s not
just people getting somewhere they were already going more
quickly, it’s actually increasing the transportation throughput
in the country.
That’s what it would be like in the United States as well,
as we develop a national network of high-speed rail [{{Figure
2}}]; this will change the productivity throughout the country.
And another aspect of this, I want to show one more thing we
can learn from China, which is the increase in energy, to take
another metric.  I had mentioned transportation.  Here’s a chart
[{{Figure 3}}]: In blue, you see total per-capita energy use in
China, from 1972-2012, so, 40 years.  Look at that difference:
Total energy use per capita in China is more than four times as
big, almost five times as big.  Now, look especially at the red
line:  That’s the amount of {electricity} used per person in
China.  Now, I know, in this chart the red line goes above the
blue line, because they’re different units, so don’t worry about
that.  The relative change is what’s important:  {Per-capital}
electricity use in China, has gone up {by 25 times}, in past four
decades — 25 times. Think about what that means.  Look at the
percentage of energy use in China, that comes from electricity,
that’s in the form of electricity:  It’s gone from 3% to
15%–that’s a {wonderful} accomplishment!  Because electricity is
a higher form of power than energy in general.  There’s things
that you can do with energy, such as burning fuels for cooking,
let’s say, or heat to power a diesel train engine, or steam
engine or something like this.  Electricity is the next level of
technology.  You can do much more with it:  You can power motors
that are controlled by computer equipment; you can have laser
manufacturing technologies, electric-discharge machining,
electron beam welding.  The next level of productivity is made
possible through the use of electricity as a higher platform.
I think we can definitely learn some lessons from China.
And the speed at which they have been doing this, I think
absolutely — I wouldn’t want to say “vindicates” but it’s a
successful experiment that shows that the method of Lyndon
LaRouche is right!
This proposal that China has made of the Belt and Road
Initiative, whereby China is engaged with multilateral financing
institutions and with its own domestic financial institutions,
like its state banks, its Export-Import Bank, etc., it’s been
involved in {major} infrastructure deals with its neighbors along
the Belt and Road, and even in more distant locations, such as
Africa, where the incredibly new rail opening in Kenya that
reduces travel time from Mombasa to Nairobi from 10 hours down to
4 hours, with the building of the Standard Gauge Railway there,
this is the type of project that is just going to dramatically
improve the productivity of Kenya.  A Chinese-financed project,
by the Chinese Export-Import Bank.
These kinds of deals are wonderful.  It’s a “win-win”
approach where China is able to export its technology, export its
know-how, the train sets that it builds, and the nations in which
the infrastructure is being built, of course, benefit from having
a great new set of infrastructure.  So everybody benefits from
this.  And the speed that this is being done with, the way that
it’s being financed, I think it says, “Hey, we could be doing
this here.”
This isn’t some sort of distant plan.  We should take the
outlook that President Trump expressed in that speech that we
just heard him make and say, we’re going to do this right now.
We can start building these things right now.  The whole
Interstate system was built in 15 years, that’s pretty fast, when
you think about the size of the thing.  What does it look like to
build a high-speed rail network in the United States?  Who’s
going to build the train sets?  Where’s the rail going to come
from? We can gear up to build the rail, but as far as high-speed
trains go, we don’t produce those!  We actually don’t have the
know-how among American domestic manufacturers.  We’re going to
be looking to China, as contractors, to build these kinds of
train sets, and also to assist with the financing.  China has
huge foreign reserves right now, and the head of China Investment
Corp. Ding Xuedong, the guy I had mentioned earlier, he said that
he’d be interested in investing some of the tens of billions of
dollars in U.S. Treasuries that China Investment Corp. holds,
happy to invest that in U.S. infrastructure.
I think from that standpoint, when we look at New York, for
example, and New York is a disaster — it’s on such a thin
thread, the ability for the over 1 million who come into
Manhattan every day for work, the ability for them to get to
work, it is incredibly precarious!  This summer, for two months,
two of the four tunnels heading east from Manhattan are going to
be closed for maintenance.  That’s going to really upset the Long
Island Railroad.  The two tunnels coming into Manhattan from the
west, the rail tunnels going into Penn Station, — which is
operating at over 100% capacity; as many trains as could possibly
fit through that tunnel are already making the trip.  New Jersey
transit commuters going into New York has tripled over the past
couple of decades.  It’s just  — you can’t fit any more people
through that tunnel!  It’s not possible.
These tunnels, the ones that I’d mentioned, these are 100
years old, or older!  {1910}, the Hudson tunnels were opened up!
These are in {desperate} need of repair — but it’s impossible to
close them to do any maintenance, because so many people are
riding on them all the time.
The only way that this can be fixed is to build an entirely
new set of tunnels, to build a new train station — here we go,
[{{Figure 4}}] this is the Gateway Project from Amtrak, where
additional lines would be built so you could have four tracks
going all the way from Penn Station, Newark; there’d be a new
loop built at Secaucus — my apologies if you’re not familiar
with the area, I know this is going fast. You’re going to have
more than double the flow of people and trains that could be
brought into New York.
This is a major and essential project.  Some work was
actually begun on it in 2009, before New Jersey Gov. Chris
Christie killed it in 2010.  But, it’s not enough.  Yes, this
should happen, but this isn’t the real outlook we ought to have.
We need to think, how is New York going to fit in a broader,
regional scheme of things?  What’s the high-speed rail going to
look like in the area?  How can we totally transform the region’s
rail stations so that instead of New Jersey Transit trains coming
into Penn Station and then turning around, they keep going to the
east? [{{Figure 5}}] To Sunnyside, Queens, to a new terminal at
Port Morris, the Bronx; this is a proposal by ReThink New York
City, a public advocacy group up there.  We need entirely new
subway lines, and a national high-speed rail network.
I just want to say one more thing about the Interstate
system here [{{Figure 6}}] which you see on the screen.  This is
the original 1955 plan.  And I’d like to talk a little bit about
how Eisenhower made this reality.  First off, in terms of where
the demand for roads came from: The real push for an improvement
in public roads came in 1880 and it was promoted by bicycle
riders, who  thought rail was great for trains, but people wanted
a smooth way to ride a bike without being quite so bumpy. By the
1930s, trucks only hauled about 10% of freight in the United
States; 75% of freight moved by rail in ’20s, with trucking doing
a small amount at that time, and then inland waterways, the
infrastructure that President Trump mentioned in that clip.
By 1958, when the highway system was starting to get built,
rail was 50% of freight, highways 20%, inland waterways 16%,
pipelines 16%; and the ability to build up a broader expressway
system was hampered by the fact of how are you going to pay for
it? So the Bureau of Public Roads had been getting
appropriations: Congress would vote up some appropriations to the
Bureau of Public Roads to give grants to help build up the U.S.
highway system. It was unreliable, you didn’t know how Congress
was going to vote every year; it made it very difficult to do
long-term planning.
What Eisenhower did was he set up the — and this is lessons
for today for national banking for how to finance these projects
— Eisenhower set up the Highway Trust Fund in 1956.  It was a
separate fund, it wasn’t part of the annual budget.  Congress
wasn’t going to vote on it every year, to say, “gee should we
build the highway system or not?” and re-debate it every single
year.  Forget it!  Eisenhower set up this special fund that had a
dedicated tax system where the money would go straight into it,
as a separate capital budget, not part of the annual operating
budget.  A tax on gasoline — by the way the current gas tax
right now, it’s too low.  It hasn’t been increased in a couple of
decades.  It should be higher.  That’s why the Highway Trust Fund
doesn’t have enough money; the gas tax hasn’t been increased to
keep pace.  What else? Tire taxes, for trucks.  Trucks have big
wear on the roads; a tax for the sale of large trucks, and also a
tax for the yearly registration of large trucks.  So these kind
of indirect taxes ended up sending the money into the Highway
Trust Fund, so that it was able to build out this whole road
system and not be repaid directly.  The emphasis was {not} toll
roads! That was actually a condition for some of the turnpikes to
get Interstate Highway System funding, was they had to get rid of
their tolls. So, along Interstate-95, I-95, a lot of these roads
used to be tollways; in Connecticut that used to be a tollway.
In ’80s, after paying off bonds for repair and upgrade of a
bridge, the tolls had to be taken down, that was in keeping with
the interstate system.
That’s the way we’ve got to think about it.  Not a
public-private partnership, where you say, “I’m going to directly
pay for this project and I’ll make the money back through tolls,”
forget it.  That’ll work for an airport upgrade or something like
that.  But for a national high-speed rail network, for these
other things, what we need is national banking, so that we can
have long-term, low-interest loans, and we can get it away from
the annual squabbles about appropriations; have the ability to
have separate capital budgeting to finance this long-term
outlook.  And of course, none of that is going to happen without
Glass-Steagall.

OGDEN:  I think that’s the vision that people are looking
for, and you even heard President Trump say, “this is the kind of
bold vision.” People are ready to work!  People are ready to
build and it is true, that if you look at the history of the
American System, what is it that conquered the West?  It was the
spirit of building; this is a nation of builders.  This is the
kind of spirit that Gov. DeWitt Clinton, a strong advocate of the
American System was a believer in.
This article that you wrote, Jason, it’s available in the
current issue of {Executive Intelligence Review}
[http://www.larouchepub.com/eiw/private/2017/2017_20-29/2017-23/
pdf/12-28_4423.pdf]
and we’ll make a link available.  But I want to ask our viewers
at this point, what have you been reading in the press this week?
What have you been seeing on television?  Have you been seeing
coverage of National Infrastructure Week?  Did you see coverage
of this inspiring speech by President Trump in Cincinnati?  Did
you see coverage, unless you’re a C-Span wonk, [laughter] did you
see the speeches that Marcy Kaptur [D-OH] and Tulsi Gabbard
[D-HI] made on the floor of the House for Glass-Steagall?  This
is one of the most historic fights in present history:  Did you
see the coverage of this fight in the Rules Committee, which was
very dramatic, over their proposal to repeal the “Financial
CHOICE Act,” a Dodd-Frank, and replace it immediately with
Glass-Steagall?  That’s a {real} repeal and replace!
Did you hear coverage of this new international order that’s
being consolidated in Eurasia?  These three back-to-back summits
with world leaders: The Belt and Road Forum, the St. Petersburg
International Economic Forum, and the Shanghai Cooperation
Organization summit that’s happening now?  Have you see coverage
of these unprecedented missions that China is sending to the
Moon? The same return mission, lunar sample return? The mission
to the far side of the Moon?
Or even, did you see coverage of this absolutely historic
election, general election that happened just last night in Great
Britain, when Theresa May got completely trounced and Jeremy
Corbyn shocked everybody, and gained unprecedented seats for
Labour Party and consolidated his control over Labour, despite
all of the opposition from within his own party.  Did you see
coverage of that?  No!
What have you been seeing?  Twenty-four hours a day, around
the clock, you’ve been seeing Comey, Comey, Comey, Comey.  This
is the sideshow, — it really reminded me of an episode from the
“People’s Court” or something. [laughter]

ROSS:  Or, “Twilight Zone.”

OGDEN:  Right.  I actually want to point your attention to
an article which is available as the lead of the LaRouche PAC
website today, called “LaRouche: Stop the FBI Fraud, Stop the
Coup against the President — What the Lying Media Is Not Telling
You”
[https://larouchepac.com/20170609/larouche-stop-fbi-fraud-stop-
coup-against-president-what-lying-media-not-telling-you].
And that’s a screenshot there from the LaRouche PAC website; this
is the lead for today. And it begins as follows:  “Lyndon
LaRouche called upon the American people to shut down the coup
underway against President Trump which was fed Thursday by the
lying testimony of fired FBI Director James Comey before the
Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. LaRouche said that the
coup is an FBI-type operation attempting to destroy the United
States, and if it is not stopped, the world will face general
warfare.”
And then it goes on to say the following: “On June 7, former
Director of National Intelligence Clapper revealed the actual
motivation for the coup against Trump in remarks in Australia. He
said that Trump’s openness to peace with Russia–the platform
upon which Trump was elected by the American people–was itself
wholly against U.S. national security interests, in effect,
equivalent to treason.”  And then the article goes on to say: “It
was already known in official Washington well before the
election, that President Obama, in collusion with the British,
candidate Clinton, DNI head Clapper, CIA head Brennan, and FBI
head Comey, had steered the U.S. on a war course with Russia and
China, which was meant to be fully activated with Clinton’s
election. Trump was elected instead, triggering the coup which
has followed.”  And then it makes the very clear point:
“President Trump has kept his promise and established better
relations with both Russia and China, who are seeking cooperation
with the United States in developing the world based on great
infrastructure projects. That is the only issue here.”
Again, that’s the beginning of the article, “LaRouche: Stop
the FBI Fraud, Stop the Coup against the President — What the
Lying Media Is Not Telling You” which is available on the
LaRouche PAC website.  And then it goes on from there, and goes
through a very detailed examination of what this process really
has been ever since Inauguration Day; so we encourage you to read
that article. And let me put on the screen again, the link to the
petition: http://action.larouchepac.com/lets_rebuild_the_country.
It’s called “Congress, Suck It Up and Move On — It’s Time To
Rebuild the Country.”  And the url is http://lpac.co/rebuild ,
that’s where you can sign this petition online.  And we also have
a mobile phone app that you can text the word REBUILD to
2025248709.
And that petition continues to accumulate signatures, and
it’s your opportunity to get involved.
I just want to let Jason say a little more in terms of the
process that’s ongoing.  The opportunity that we have ahead of
us, — Helga LaRouche’s attendance at the Belt and Road Forum
that occurred in Beijing, the campaign which we’ve been running
for the United States to join this Silk Road — what better
opportunity do we have than now, when you actually have your
President, whatever you want to say about him, is strongly
advocating a modernization of U.S.  infrastructure and an
exciting program to give Americans the opportunity to build a new
era of U.S. infrastructure.

ROSS:  Well, Trump’s initiative is right.  His direction on
this is right.  He likes to build things;  you’ve heard that
speech, this is a good direction for this country.  What is
really not very present is how to finance it.  And that’s the big
weakness and that’s what we are responsible for correcting.
That’s what Lyndon LaRouche has been working on for decades, is a
real science of economics and doing that in opposition to what
has taken over United States policy: monetarism.
The Trump idea is that $200 billion in Federal financing is
going to be leveraged to create a total of $1 trillion over a
decade for U.S. infrastructure. That’s the Trump outlook. That’s
grossly insufficient.  The idea that you’re going to leverage
$200 billion into a total of $1 trillion is a difficult thing if
you don’t have the ability to capture the indirect value of
infrastructure.  Because, look, think about the value of building
up a platform.  The value of building up an infrastructure
platform, isn’t to make money by charging people to use it.  Now
you open up some business where you’re making cookies, well sure,
you sell your cookies; people pay to eat your cookies or
whatever, that’s fine, that’s how a business works.
That’s now how an infrastructure platform works:  The return
is indirect, the return isn’t local to the place where the
infrastructure is built.  It changes the nation as a whole.  And
when we think about linking in to the full World Land-Bridge
proposal, crossing the Bering Straits, not only will we be able
to ship things from the Americas over to Asia more quickly than
you can by ship, but you’re opening up the Arctic.  There’s tons
of resources in the Arctic!  There’s petroleum, we know about
that; but mineral resources, all sorts of potential up there.
It’s not worth anything if you can’t get to it.  So building up
that whole network, as Dr. Hal Cooper has put forward in his
engineering proposals on this, tremendous change.  To the south,
bridging the Darién Gap, connecting North, Central and South
America as one: These are tremendous potentials.
The value of infrastructure, it’s indirect, it’s not local;
{and}, it’s not commensurable.  A dollar into infrastructure,
maybe has, you might calculate $2.5  of benefit or something like
this.  It’s not the same dollars.  That chart I had showed
earlier about China’s use of electricity as a percentage of its
total power, this represents a transformation of the economy.
The fact that total power went up five times, but electrical
power went up 25 times, China’s not doing five times more of what
it used to do, or leaving the lights on longer, or something like
this.  This represents {a change in the structure of the economy
as a whole.}  And it’s made possible by building out a network of
power. China needs {much} more power into the future; China is
building nuclear power plants into the future, and this is really
the next level of platform of energy, just as high-speed and
maglev rail is the future of transportation, nuclear power,
developing fusion power, that’s the next level of electricity.
So we’ve got to think of those leapfrogging type steps.  And
our message to Trump is:  Good direction, we’ve got some very
serious proposals for you about how to make it all possible;
Glass-Steagall is absolutely essential, as you, Mr. President,
promised in your campaign.  And then, we need national banking,
as a way of indirectly financing these projects that just won’t
give money back to a private investor, it’s not how they work.
{And} finance fusion, so we get that next level, the next
platform will be possible

OGDEN:  Yeah, absolutely.  OK.  I think that’s an exciting
and very direct message.  We’ve got a lot going on, clearly.
This has been a very, very eventful week! And I think we can just
expect the pace of the things to continue to increase.
So thank you very much for watching today, and please
encourage other people to watch this broadcast; there is a lot of
material, and it’s a lot to absorb and a lot to teach others
about.
Thank you very much, Jason.  I know you’re going to be up in
New York City next week, and presenting some of this, for our
friends who are up there, I encourage you to directly participate
in that discussion with Jason. And please read Jason’s article,
“Case Study New York City: A Future Platform of U.S.
Infrastructure.”  We’re making that available in the description
for today’s broadcast.
Thank you Jason, and thank you for watching.  Please stay
tuned to larouchepac.com.  Good night.

Kongresmedlem Marcy Kaptur (Dem.-Ohio), med støtte af kongresmedlem Walter Jones (Rep.-NC), havde her til aften foretræde for Husets Rules Committee (der afgør, hvilke alternative lovforslag, der kan komme til afstemning i salen, -red.) og anmodede om, at komiteen »etablerer en fair debat om genindførelse af Glass/Steagall-loven« i Repræsentanternes Hus (’Huset’), for at vende tilbage til et »sundere, mere konkurrencedygtigt, mere solidt banksystem i stedet for grasserende [Wall Street] spekulation«. Hun sagde, »Dette hviler på en opdeling af risikabel spekulation og ’klog og forsigtig’ bankpraksis … en Glass/Steagall-bankopdeling.«

Kaptur sagde til komiteen, at de årtier, hvor Glass-Steagall udgjorde nationens primære banklov, »refereres til som guldalderen« for økonomisk vækst, rigelig udlånskredit og fair renter til forbrugerne på deres bankindskud. Hun sagde, at næsten to tredjedele af de lokalbanker, der tjente denne æra, var forsvundet siden 1990’erne, hvor Glass-Steagall blev fjernet (endegyldigt i 1999), og at antallet af kreditforeninger var halveret. Kaptur fordømte de seks største, amerikanske banker, der tjente $141 mia. om året i profit, mens »Bedstemor Moses intet tjener på sit kontoindskud«.

»Bernie Sanders førte kampagne for at bryde disse banker op«, sagde Kaptur. Det samme gjorde Donald Trump. Begge partiernes valgplatforme støttede det, og Republikanernes Nationale Komite brugte færre ord end Demokraterne: ’Vi støtter genindførelsen af Glass/Steagall-loven af 1933’.«

»Vores nation har muligheden for at gøre dette rigtigt, før endnu en overhængende finanskrise, der måske har rod i private foretagenders gæld (altså ikke statsgæld), rammer«, sluttede Kaptur. »Kongressen må ikke vente; muligheden for at genindføre Glass-Steagall, er nu.«

Kongressens ’Rules Committee’, i en afstemning blandt Republikanere, nedstemte Kaptur-Jones forslaget som en del af den forestående debat om Republikanernes »Lov om finansielt VALG« (CHOICE Act). Kaptur vil få mulighed for at anke dette, når CHOICE-loven kommer til afstemning i salen, muligvis i denne uge.

Leder fra LaRouche PAC, 6. juni, 2017 – Til amerikanere og europæere, der døgnet rundt, og alle ugens syv dage, udsættes for en spærreild af rapporter om globale katastrofer, om Trump, der står over for afsættelse ved rigsretssag, om verden, der snart brænder op pga. global opvarmning og flere og flere ’fake news’ – falske nyheder – og ’fake’ videnskab og bevidst fremkaldt pessimisme – kom videre i teksten! Verden har forandret sig.

Momentum i vor samtids historie defineres af den enorme sejr for menneskeheden, der blev konsolideret på Bælte & Vej Forum for Internationalt Samarbejde den 14.-15. maj i Kina, efterfulgt af Skt. Petersborg Internationale Økonomiske Forum den 1.-3. juni, i Rusland.

Disse fora gik langt videre end til at fremlægge en håbefuld vision om en fjern fremtid, men fremlagde også en kortlægning af den transformation af hele planeten, der har fundet sted i løbet af de seneste par år gennem processen med den Nye Silkevej samtidig med, at man har opnået et forpligtende engagement på vegne af det store flertal af den menneskelige race, for at fortsætte denne udvikling i et forhøjet tempo.

USA var deltager i denne proces, med præsident Trump, der sendte en seniordelegeret til Beijing, og med 300 førende industrifolk, der deltog i Skt. Petersborg. Helga Zepp-LaRouches deltagelse på Bælte & Vej Forum, og på fora og i presseinterviews i hele Kina i to uger efter BVF-begivenheden, demonstrerede anerkendelsen i Kina af, at hun og hendes mand, Lyndon LaRouche, tilbage i 1990’erne havde initieret processen med at erstatte den Kolde Krig med udviklingsprojekter, der fysisk og kulturelt forbinder nationer, ligesom den oprindelige Silkevej havde gjort det i fortiden.

I dag talte Helga Zepp-LaRouche til de amerikanske medlemmer af LaRouche-organisationen om det presserende nødvendige i at løfte befolkningen ud af det kontrollerede miljø, som er skabt af de desintegrerende politiske partier, de neokonservative og de mislykkede massemedier. Er infrastrukturen i din by ved at smuldre, som den er i New York City? Stil dig selv spørgsmålet: Hvad ville Kina gøre? Inden for et eller to år ville Kina erstatte forfaldet med nye højhastighedsjernbaner, svævetogs- (maglev-) undergrundsbaner, produktion af elektricitet ved hjælp af kernekraft og nye faciliteter til uddannelses- og sundhedssektor. Og, med initiativet for Bælte & Vej, sammen med de udviklingsbanker, de har skabt, bringer Kina denne proces til resten af verden – inklusive (hvis vi accepterer) til USA.

Dette er, hvad Franklin Roosevelt og John F. Kennedy ville have gjort. Dette er, hvad LaRouche, meget detaljeret, har foreslået hen over de seneste 50 år, siden Kennedy blev dræbt af dem, der foragtede hans vision og videnskabelige optimisme. I dag gennemgik Zepp-LaRouche, hvordan denne organisation har udarbejdet udstrakte udviklingsprojekter for Afrika, for Latinamerika, for det Indiske Hav/Stillehavsbækkenet og for Nordamerika, og ligeledes for en tilbagevenden til Hamiltons, Lincolns og Roosevelts politikker for udstedelse af statskreditter, der ville fremme sådanne store projekter. Men dette er præcis de forslag, der i dag bliver implementeret under Kinas og Ruslands lederskab!

Der er ingen tid at spilde med hensyn til at vække den amerikanske befolkning og de europæiske befolkninger til at gå med i det nye paradigme, der står lige foran dem, men som er skjult af den løgnagtige presse, og af deres egen frygt og pessimisme. Hidtil har præsident Trump nægtet at bøje sig for den nye ’McCarthy-isme’, som er orkestreret af briterne og deres aktiver i USA, og som tror, at befolkningen er blevet så »fordummet«, at den vil acceptere den absurditet, at et venskab med Rusland og Kina er en forbrydelse mod amerikansk frihed og demokrati.

Det vil ikke virke. LaRouche-organisationen er, med løsningerne på hånden, strategisk placeret til at bryde igennem moradset for at bringe USA og Europa fuldt og helt ind i den Nye Silkevej, for at genindføre Glass/Steagall-bankopdelingslov og statsbankpraksis i Hamiltons tradition, og for at gå sammen med resten af verden i forceringen af den menneskelige videns fremskudte grænser og skabe en fremtid, der er menneskeheden værdig, her på Jorden, og i vore fremtidige kolonier i rummet.

31. maj, 2017 – Den svenske Nordea Bank overvejer at flytte sit hovedkvarter og registrering fra Sverige til enten Helsinki eller København. Nordea protesterer imod en stigning i bankens betalinger til bankafviklingsfonden, der skal dække bankers omstrukturering i en krise. Den svenske regering ønsker, at bankerne skal øge deres betalinger til denne fond for at gardere finanssystemet, men Nordea Bank søger lempeligere betingelser andetsteds.

I en lang artikel den 29. maj i en webbaseret finansavis, Realtid.se, diskuterer EIR’s Ulf Sandmark og iværksætter og forfatter Mats Lonnerblad bankopdeling. Sandmark tog spørgsmålet om Nordeas gigantiske derivat-forretninger op. Overskriften på artiklen anklager Nordea Bank for at »overføre gigantiske finansielle risici til den svenske befolkning«. Sammenlignet med de risici, som Nordeas derivathandel påfører det svenske samfund, er de forpligtelser, som staten påfører Nordea, mikroskopiske, siger han.

Artiklen bringer for første gang til den svenske offentlighed de italienske argumenter mod farerne ved derivaterne og de iboende farer i den kendsgerning, at fastlæggelsen af deres værdi overlades til banken selv, især mht. niveau-3-derivater. Medlem af EU-parlamentet Marco Zanni (fra Italien), såvel som også de italienske medier, har sat fokus på dette.

Artiklen slutter med bankopdeling – Glass-Steagall – som den foretrukne metode til gardering af banker og stater imod den overhængende bankkrise. Under Glass-Steagall er investeringsbankvirksomhed, til forskel fra kommerciel bankvirksomhed, ikke forsikret af staten. Ved at reducere risici i bankerne på denne måde, er der ikke behov for bankafviklingsfonden, og Nordea kunne blive i Sverige. http://www.realtid.se/debatt/nordea-overlater-gigantiska-finansiella-risker-pa-svenska-folket

Foto: Nordeas hovedkontor i Stockholm.

Leder fra LaRouche PAC, 29. maj, 2017 – Verden ser meget anderledes ud, når den anskues fra Kina, end den gør fra USA eller Europa, lød Helga Zepp-LaRouches kommentar, da hun vendte hjem fra sin deltagelse i Bælt & Vej Forum i Beijing, der fandt sted 14.-15. maj. Kina befinder sig i en udvikling, der foregår i et forbløffende tempo, og deler nu denne succesfulde model med hele planeten, gennem Bælt & Vej-initiativet. Som en opstigende kraft i hele planetens økonomiske og kulturelle udvikling har Kina et optimistisk og forhåbningsfuldt syn – og ikke den pessimisme og fortvivlelse, der har hersket i det meste af Europa og USA, siden mordet på John F. Kennedy.

Der foregår nu en global omgruppering, bemærkede Helga Zepp-LaRouche, med fornuftige regeringer, der bringer deres nationer om bord i Bælt & Vej-initiativet. Kun de dumdristige vil blive stående udenfor og ’kigge ind’ sådan, som Angela Merkel nu gør med Tyskland.

Præsident Donald Trump må nu handle hurtigt for at sikre, at USA bliver en del af denne omgrupperede orientering. Han valgte klogt at sende en personlig toprådgiver, Matt Pottinger, som sin repræsentant til Bælt & Vej Forum. Nu må han forhandle Amerikas fulde deltagelse i alle aspekter af dette Nye Paradigme, inklusive investering af billioner af dollars i genopbygningen af Amerikas totalt ødelagte infrastruktur. Trump må handle hurtigt for at skabe reel, fysisk-økonomisk forandring – det er, hvad de millioner, der stemte på ham, venter på. Han må handle hurtigt, for at genindsætte FDR’s Glass/Steagall-lov fra 1933 for at skabe den nødvendige bank- og kreditramme for en sådan massiv indsats for genopbygning – dét er mandatet, han fik ved præsidentvalget i 2016. Den idémæssige køreplan for, hvordan disse politikker skal implementeres i USA, har Lyndon LaRouche gentagent leveret – senest i sine Fire Love (til USA’s – og verdens – omgående redning).

Præsident Trump bør ikke tillade, at han presses eller distraheres bort fra denne hastedagsorden, af disse tendentiøse og grundløse anklager, der slynges ud mod hans regering, den ene efter den anden. Det er netop formålet med disse, af briterne påbudte operationer, at de skal forhindre præsident Trump i at vedtage de nationale, og internationale, politikker, som Det britiske Imperium i den grad frygter. At fordømme og afsløre disse løgne er selvfølgelig nyttigt, og endda nødvendigt. Men, denne eneste måde, hvorpå disse beskidte operationer på afgørende vis kan begraves, er at gøre præcis dét, som briterne er mest bange for; og begynde at bygge infrastrukturen og andre store projekter, nu.

En mere passende hyldest til John F. Kennedy i hundredeåret for hans fødsel, end netop atter at hellige vor nation disse politikker, eksisterer ikke.

Foto: Helga Zepp-LaRouche på Bælt & Vej Forum i Beijing, den 14.-15. maj, 2017.

Bælt & Vej Forum i Beijing den 14.-15. maj, hvor 130 lande havde takket ja til præsident Xi Jinpings invitation, Ruslands Putin var æresgæst, men hvor også USA sendte en vigtig delegation, kan meget vel være starten på en sådan ny, retfærdig økonomisk verdensorden, hvor alle nationer får adgang til udvikling. Trump taler stadig godt med Xi Jinping og forbereder at løse krisen med Nordkorea. USA og Rusland samarbejder i Syrien. Krigsfraktionen i Vesten fortsætter heksejagten på Trump, og medierne skriger »Watergate« uden, at der er substans. Kan medierne sammen med efterretningstjenesterne få afsat Trump? Eller vil Trump rense op i overvågningssamfundet? Trump skal have gang i infrastrukturprojekter, men pengene vil ikke komme fra Wall Street. Vil vi se Glass/Steagall og LaRouches tre andre love blive gennemført, så USA kan overleve det bankerotte finanssystem og blive stort igen? Vil USA og Europa gå med i dette nye, globale paradigme? Præsident Trumps afvisning, ved NATO-topmødet i Bruxelles den 25. maj, og ved det efterfølgende G7-topmøde i Italien, af at lade USA under hans ledelse fortsætte den gamle, vestlige politik, kan være startskuddet til en helt ny verdensorden, hvor USA samarbejder tæt med de tidligere fjendebilleder Kina og Rusland.

Dette er en redigeret udgave af en tale, Tom Gillesberg, Schiller Instituttets formand i Danmark, holdt den 17. maj 2017. Se og hør talen inklusive den efterfølgende diskussion på www.schillerinstitut.dk.

Download (PDF, Unknown)

Leder fra LaRouche PAC, 17. maj, 2017 – Verdens ledere, der vender hjem til deres lande fra det historiske Bælt & Vej Forum i Beijing, udtaler vidt og bredt, at et nyt paradigme for verdens anliggender er blevet etableret, både økonomisk og kulturelt. Titlen på EIR’s Specialrapport fra 2014, »Den Nye Silkevej bliver til Verdenslandbroen«, er på en meget realistisk måde blevet til virkelighed.

I Europa er italienerne, med hjælp fra kineserne, i færd med at sammensætte en ny Nordlig Adriaterhavs-Havnesammenslutning, sammen med Slovenien og Kroatien, som vil opgradere havne og bygge jernbaneforbindelser igennem til Øst- og Vesteuropa. Med kinesisk hjælp er grækerne i færd med at planlægge endnu en jernbanelinje fra den nyligt udvidede havn i Piræus (opgraderet af Kina), og som løber op langs vestkysten og ind i Balkanlandene. Tjekkiets præsident Milos Zeman hånede dem, der klager over, at Bælt & Vej splitter Europa og sagde, at Europa allerede er forfærdelig splittet, men kan forenes gennem den fælles Silkevejsmission. Ungarns premierminister Viktor Orbán sagde, at mange lande var lede og kede af at høre på formaninger om menneskerettigheder og foredrag om frie markeder, og at den »gamle model for globalisering er død« med den Nye Silkevej, der skaber et udviklingsbaseret, globalt paradigme.

I Asien diskuterer Japan nu en tilslutning til Asiatisk Infrastruktur-Investeringsbank (AIIB) og gensidige besøg mellem Kinas præsident Xi Jinping og Japans premierminister Shinzo Abe, som den amerikanske præsident Donald Trump har tilskyndet til. Filippinernes præsident Rodrigo Duterte planlægger at genoplive fælles udvikling af de rige resurser i det Sydkinesiske Hav sammen med Kina og Vietnam, nu, hvor Obamas plan for krig i det Sydkinesiske Hav er blevet afvist i hele Asien, og af Trump-administrationen.

I Latinamerika roste generalsekretæren for FN-kontoret for den Økonomiske Kommission for Latinamerika og Caribien (ECLAC), Alicia Bárcena, Bælt & Vej som »en fornyelse af den dybe forpligtelse over for de værdier, som er fundamentale for vores globale, økonomiske og sociale velfærd« og opfordrede alle medlemslandene til at »opsamle det potentiale, som dette Ét bælt, én vej-program har for at omdefinere kapitalisme gennem folks ligeværd og værdighed«.

I Afrika sagde den etiopiske premierminister Hailemariam Desalegn, at Bælt & Vej »åbner døren for udviklingslande og fremvoksende nationaløkonomier til at bidrage til global, økonomisk vækst«. Kenyas præsident Uhuru Kenyatta sagde, at »Bælt & Vej-initiativet giver vort kontinent muligheden for at gennemføre et paradigmeskift. Post-koloniale Afrika har siddet fast i en trummerum. At blive en del af Ét bælt gør det muligt for kontinentet at gå videre til en ny platform, ved hvilken globalt samarbejde vil muliggøre merværdi, innovation og øget fremgang«.

Lignende entusiastiske responser fylde pressen i nationer i hele udviklingssektoren.

Og i USA etablerede Trump-administrationens repræsentant, Matthew Pottinger, en »Amerikansk Bælt & Vej Arbejdsgruppe« som et partnerskab mellem den Amerikanske Ambassade i Beijing og amerikanske selskaber, for at bringe amerikanske selskaber ind i Silkevejsprocessen. Desuden inviterede han Kina til at deltage i det »Særlige Amerikanske Investeringstopmøde« den 18.-20. juni i området omkring Washington, D.C., med det formål at bringe Kina ind i investeringsmuligheder i USA.

Ikke desto mindre ville en person, der var afhængig af den amerikanske presse eller rapporter fra den amerikanske Kongres, ikke vide noget som helst om alt dette. I stedet består næsten alt i USA’s 24-timers nyhedscyklus af hysteriske tirader om præsident Trump. Hvis man troede på noget af det, skulle man tro, præsidenten var en marionet for onde Rusland og onde Kina, at han skulle være skyldig i forræderi for at gøre sit arbejde og gøre det, han lovede i sin valgkampagne – nemlig, at afslutte Bush’ og Obamas politik for »krige for regimeskifte« og at genoprette Amerikas industri-infrastruktur, samt de hertil hørende arbejdspladser.

Tro ikke på den løgn, at Trump skulle være tvunget i forsvarsposition; at hans handlinger skulle have undermineret hans troværdighed, som medierne bringer til torvs ad nauseam. For kendsgerningen er den, at Trump er i offensiven for at afslutte den britiske imperieæra i historien. Briterne, med samt deres aktiver i USA – de neokonservative i begge politiske partier og på Wall Street, og de korrupte elementer i efterretningssamfundet, især i FBI – er totalt hysteriske over, at deres geopolitiske opsplitning af verden og deres evne til at få den amerikanske befolkning til passivt at acceptere nedskæringer og krig, er i færd med at blive ødelagt af Trumps tiltag for at bringe USA ind i den Nye Silkevej og for at samarbejde med Rusland om at knuse terroristsvøben. Hans erklærede hensigt om at genindføre Glass-Steagall driver simpelt hen de britiske aktiver yderligere ind i en panikreaktion.

Som Helga Zepp-LaRouche gentog i sine mange taler og interviews i Kina i forgangne weekend, hvor hun optrådte som taler på det Globale Topmøde for Tænketanke under Bælt & Vej Forum: Hvis Donald Trump lykkes med at bringe USA in i det nye paradigme med den globale Silkevej, vil han huskes som én de store præsidenter i amerikansk historie.

Foto: Præsident Trump og præsident Erdogan udsteder en fælles erklæring i Roosevelt Room i Det Hvide Hus, tirsdag, den 16. maj, 2017, i Washington, D.C. (Whitehouse Instagram)

“Hvor ønsker vi, menneskeheden som helhed skal være om 10, 100 eller endda
1000 år? Er det ikke menneskehedens naturlige skæbne, som den hidtil eneste
kendte, kreative art i universet, at vi i fremtiden vil bygge landsbyer på Månen,
udvikle en dybere forståelse af de billioner af galakser i vort univers, løse spørgsmålet
om sygdomme, der hidtil ikke har kunnet kureres, eller løse spørgsmålet om
sikkerhed for forsyning af energi og råmaterialer gennem udvikling af
termonuklear fusionskraft?
Ved at fokusere på menneskehedens fælles mål, vil vi blive i stand til at overvinde
geopolitik og etablere et højere fornuftsgrundlag, til fordel for alle.”

Leder fra LaRouche PAC, 15. maj, 2017 – Helga Zepp-LaRouche, stifter og præsident for Schiller Instituttet, deltog i går, på åbningsdagen af Bælt & Vej Forum for Internationalt Samarbejde i Beijing, Kina, i »Tematisk session om udvekslinger mellem tænketanke«, på panelet med titlen, »Bælt & Vej for fremme af stærk, afbalanceret, inkluderende og bæredygtig, global økonomi«. Her følger hendes indlæg:

Bælt & Vej byder Verdenslandbroen velkommen

I de tre et halvt år, der er gået, siden præsident Xi Jinping annoncerede initiativet i 2013, har der været en åndeløs dynamik i den Nye Silkevej. Bælt & Vej-initiativet har det indlysende potentiale til hurtigt at blive til en Verdenslandbro, der forbinder alle kontinenter gennem infrastruktur, såsom tunneller og broer, og som forstærkes gennem den Maritime Silkevej. Som sådan repræsenterer initiativet en ny form for globalisering, der ikke bestemmes af kriteriet for profitmaksimering for finanssektoren, men derimod af kriteriet for den harmoniske udvikling af alle deltagende lande på basis af win-win-samarbejde.

Det er derfor vigtigt, at man ikke ser på Bælt & Vej-initiativet ud fra en bogholders synspunkt, som fremskriver sit statistiske cost-benefit-synspunkt ind i fremtiden, men at vi derimod tænker på det som en vision om et fællesskab for en fælles fremtid. Hvor ønsker vi, menneskeheden som helhed skal være om 10, 100 eller endda 1000 år? Er det ikke menneskehedens naturlige skæbne, som den hidtil eneste kendte, kreative art i universet, at vi i fremtiden vil bygge landsbyer på Månen, udvikle en dybere forståelse af de billioner af galakser i vort univers, løse spørgsmålet om sygdomme, der hidtil ikke har kunnet kureres, eller løse spørgsmålet om sikkerhed for forsyning af energi og råmaterialer gennem udvikling af termonuklear fusionskraft? Ved at fokusere på menneskehedens fælles mål, vil vi blive i stand til at overvinde geopolitik og etablere et højere fornuftsgrundlag, til fordel for alle.

Det er åbenlyst, at Verdenslandbroen er ideel for at fuldføre udviklingen af vor planets indlandsområder. Koloniseringen af det nære rum bliver den indlysende, næste fase af den infrastrukturelle åbning af menneskets naturlige levested.

Når man ser på et verdenskort, så er USA ikke kun et land, der er omgivet af to oceaner og to naboer, men at det kan blive en central del af en infrastrukturkorridor, der, via Central- og Sydamerika, forbinder Ibero-Amerika med det eurasiske transportsystem, via en tunnel under Beringstrædet. Siden præsident Xi Jinping tilbød præsident Trump, at USA kunne tilslutte sig Bælt & Vej-initiativet, er der nu et praktisk forslag på bordet, hvor USA kan blive en integreret del af Verdenslandbroen. USA’s infrastrukturbehov, der er enorme, kunne være en perfekt anledning til at konvertere alle eller en del af de $1,4 billion, som udgør Kinas beholdning af amerikanske statsobligationer, til sådanne investeringer via en infrastrukturbank. For eksempel har USA virkelig brug for ca. 40.000 mil hurtige jernbaner, hvis de ønsker at være på lige fod med de kinesiske planer om frem til år 2020 at forbinde alle de større byer i Kina via hurtigtog.

Den amerikanske økonomi ville opleve en enorm styrkelse gennem en sådan storstilet infrastrukturinvestering og kunne igen eksportere til det hastigt voksende, kinesiske marked, og når konkurrence først er udskiftet med samarbejde, er mulighederne for joint ventures mellem USA og Kina i tredjelande enorme.

Siden præsident Trump har erklæret, at det er hans plan at genintroducere det Amerikanske Økonomiske System, opfundet og praktiseret af Alexander Hamilton, Henry C. Clay og Abraham Lincoln, og ligeledes genintroducere Franklin D. Roosevelts Glass/Steagall-lov, er muligheden for en snarlig etablering af en Nationalbank og et statsligt kreditsystem, med det formål at kanalisere kinesiske beholdninger (af amerikanske statsobligationer) over i infrastrukturinvesteringer, nærmere en realitet.

Alt imens flere og flere europæiske nationer, både i og uden for EU, er ved at anerkende BVI’s enorme potentiale og giver udtryk for planer om at blive et omdrejningspunkt for eurasisk samarbejde, så har selve EU været reserveret, for at sige det diplomatisk.

Der er imidlertid en enorm udfordring, som gør, at EU-staterne kunne overbevises om at samarbejde med BVI: Det er flygtningekrisen. Den eneste måde, hvorpå dette Europas moralske sår kan heles, er den aktive integration af de europæiske nationer i en storstilet udviklingsplan for hele Afrika, under BVI.

Den nye, positive udsigt til samarbejde mellem USA og Rusland i Syrien om deeskalering og samarbejde mellem de to landes militære styrker, sammen med Astana-processen, stiller nu en stabilisering af hele regionen i sigte. Der eksisterer allerede tilbud fra Kina om at forlænge den Nye Silkevej ind i Sydvestasien.

Den Nye Silkevej må – som oldtidens Silkevej gjorde det – føre til en udveksling af de skønneste udtryk for alle de deltagende landes kultur, hvis den skal lykkes. Den sande betydning af win-win-samarbejde er mere end blot den materielle fordel af infrastruktur- og industriudvikling, men er også den frydefulde opdagelse af andre kulturer og skønheden i deres klassiske musik, poesi og malerkunst og hermed, gennem at lære dem at kende, at styrke vores kærlighed til menneskeheden som helhed.

I opbygningen af Verdenslandbroen vil alle nationer samarbejde om at undersøge, hvordan man anvender lovene for noosfæren med det formål at etablere levedygtige former for regeringen af os selv. Udvikling af de skabende, intellektuelle evner hos alle mennesker i alle nationer vil give hele menneskeheden en fornemmelse af enhed og formål, som vil gøre vores art virkeligt menneskelig. Når vi organiserer vore samfund omkring videnskabelig og kunstnerisk opdagelse, vil vi fuldende vores viden om, hvordan vi uophørligt kan fremme menneskehedens selvudviklingsproces, intellektuelt, moralsk og æstetisk, og vi vil finde vores frihed i nødvendighed – hvor vi gør vores pligt, med lidenskab!